Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Defence-related Employment

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of defence-related employment in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Direct employment in Scotland associated with Ministry of Defence expenditure on equipment stood at around 14,000 in 1989–90. This was the equivalent of 9·5 per cent. of such employment in the United Kingdom, a proportion which has been constant since 1987–1988. In addition, at 1 July 1990, a total of 19,300 service personnel and 12,300 Ministry of Defence civilian employees were deployed in Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: How does the Minister intend to protect employment and help diversification at GEC-Ferranti and Yarrow? Will he focus on the Ministry of Defence decision to do away with 2,000 infantry soldiers' jobs in Scotland? In particular, will he reflect on assurances given by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Transport that the amalgamations of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots, the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders will be further reviewed? Now that both the Secretary of Stale for Defence and the Prime Minister have comprehensively rubbished those assurances, will the Secretary of State for Scotland have to eat humble pie again or will he stand up for Scotland and make this a resignation issue?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Defence have spoken in complete unison on this. [Interruption.] The position is

perfectly clear. There is no intention to review the proposals that have been announced, but there are at least two years before the first amalgamations and if military circumstances change, there is time for a reassessment of present plans.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, it is worth saying that with 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, Scotland will retain 15·8 per cent. of the infantry, 13·6 per cent. of the armoured forces and 18·8 per cent. of the artillery. On the readjustment of industry, at my right hon. Friend's request Scottish Enterprise has established a defence industries initiative to help businesses and local enterprise companies exploit existing defence markets and develop diversification strategies. I hope that that move will be welcomed by the entire House.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern of my constituents who work at the Royal Navy workshop at Almondbank because of the present review of helicopter servicing. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents and the House that the Conservative party and Ministers in Scotland are fighting to ensure that that workshop, which has a record of excellence and can carry out plating work which saves the Government millions of pounds on buying replacement parts, will continue because of its record and not for sentimental reasons?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's expertise on this subject and his concern about it. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is present on the Front Bench and will have noted what my hon. Friend has said.
Almondbank is one of a number of helicopter facilities. A Cabinet Office efficiency scrutiny team is examining the structure of those facilities and will report early in the new year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall take a close interest in this matter. I shall also ensure that the merits and advantages of Almondbank, to which my hon. Friend rightly referred are taken fully into account.

Mr. Dewar: I thank the Minister for clarifying the Scottish Office position. I now understand that there will be no review of the future of the Scottish regiments unless there is a dramatic change in circumstances or a change in the strategic requirements of the country. How does he reconcile that with the rather desperate hints given by the Secretary of State in recent weeks as he vainly tried to rally his troops in the recent by-election? Is it not the case that after all the hype and hopes that were insinuated in the debate, the Scottish Office is toeing the Ministry of Defence line?
Does the Minister accept that there is an atmosphere of crisis within the defence contracting industry in Scotland? Does he accept the make-or-break significance of the next round of type 23 frigate orders for Yarrow and the central importance of GEC-Ferranti? Will we have regular reports of what the diversification unit set up by Scottish Enterprise is doing, its remit and the kind of results it is recommending?

Mr. Stewart: First, as I understand Labour party policy, which is a matter of some difficulty, the hon. Gentleman's party would cut defence expenditure by about £5 billion per year.
On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I am not responsible for what the press say about particular matters. I repeat our position, which has been made


absolutely clear by my right hon. Friends. There is no intention to review the announcement on the Scottish regiments, but there is at least two years until the first amalgamations and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Scottish ones will take place at the end of the process. If military circumstances change, there is time for a reassessment of the present plans.
I fully appreciate the importance of GEC-Ferranti as an employer in Edinburgh and Lothian. Yarrow is also a major employer, not only in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman but throughout the west of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] that I have discussed the frigate orders with the shop stewards. I believe that a meeting has been arranged between the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: I realise the importance of such matters in Scotland, but may I ask for crisper questions?

Hon. Members: And answers.

Mr. Speaker: And answers.

Clydeside Against Pollution

Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to meet a delegation of members of the campaign for Clydeside against pollution.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Neither my righ hon. Friend nor I have any plans to meet a delegation of members of the campaign for Clydeside against pollution.

Mrs. Adams: The Minister may recall that it is almost a year since I first raised in the House the matter of the proposed incinerator in Renfrew. Since then the community of Renfrew—and, in fact, the entire Clyde valley community—have had the prospect of a toxic waste incinerator hanging over their heads like a black cloud. Will the Minister now come to my constituency and meet representatives of this responsible campaign group to discuss the prospect of a full public inquiry into the matter?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role, as planning matters may be involved and there could be a planning appeal to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dewar: They should be involved.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says that they should be involved. I am saying that there could be an appeal to the Secretary of State and that therefore it is not appropriate to have a meeting. However, as I am conscious of the strong feeling that the hon. Lady has registered on behalf of her constituents, I assure her that before a plant can be registered for an incinerator it must comply with the emissions standards enforced by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate. Those standards must be in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Alkali, etc. Works Regulation Act 1906. Over and above that, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 brings more stringent procedures into force in 1992 and will apply to the subject.
The hon. Lady also asked about a public inquiry. At this stage I can only say that, as the statutory procedures are being correctly followed in all respects, a public inquiry would not be appropriate.

Fish Conservation

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss the conservation of fishing stocks.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My noble Friend the Scottish Fisheries Minister will meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 18 November.

Mrs. Ewing: At the meeting on 18 November, will there be a clear discussion about the eight-day tie-up regulations which, one year on, are now seen as the most hated and despised aspect of the conservation policy, bringing financial hardship, fear and life-threatening situations to our coastal communities? If the Government are not prepared to abolish that most ineffective policy, will they at least consider flexibility in the application of the rules, taking particular account of men who are kept on shore because of bad weather or boat maintenance?

Mr. Forsyth: There will be a discussion at the December Fisheries Council about the best means of reducing fishing effort in 1992. The eight-day tie-up has been an agreed method within the Community during the current year. If the hon. Lady has any proposals, I am sure that my noble Friend would be interested to hear them. We are not absolutely committed to the eight-day tie-up rule and would be prepared to discuss other means of reducing fishing effort, but they would have to be agreed with our European Community partners.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that we are concentrating on conservation. Will my hon. Friend consider, in the light of our efforts on set-aside in agriculture, that the principle of decommissioning is very similar? I thank my hon. Friend for the Government's efforts to reduce the pressure on drift netting in the North sea, which will have a good impact on salmon fishing in Scotland. That will help our tourist industry and many other rural economies in Scotland.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree that the measures taken in respect of drift netting will boost salmon interests in Scotland. We remain open to suggestions on decommissioning. It need not necessarily reduce fishing effort, but it is about making people in the fishing industry unemployed. Our objectives are to secure the long-term interests of the fishing industry by ensuring effective measures to secure stocks.

Mr. Macdonald: A radical conservation measure which would enjoy the full support of the fishermen affected would be a weekend ban on prawn fisheries on the west coast. It would not cost the Government money, would have the support of fishermen and would be extremely effective in terms of conservation.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall ensure that my noble Friend the Scottish Fisheries Minister is aware of the hon.


Gentleman's suggestion. I am sure that he will consider the hon. Gentleman's representations, which are always carefully put and taken seriously.

Ayrshire South Hospital

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of responses to the consultation process regarding the application for trust status for Ayrshire South hospital; and how many were for or against.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Eight hundred and five written responses, including 579 pre-printed slips from local newspapers, were received. A petition was also submitted.
Opinions ranged from outright support to outright opposition, with many respondents expressing concern or seeking information about particular aspects of the application.

Mr. McKelvey: That answer is a disgrace. I asked how many responses had been received because we knew, from the responses that we had received, that the vast majority of the people of Ayrshire are totally opposed to the opting out of Ayrshire South hospital. That opinion is absolutely in line with that expressed by the people of Kincardine and Deeside who thoroughly rejected opting out at the ballot box. If the Secretary of State is able to give an honest answer at the Dispatch Box, will he tell us that if he genuinely surveys the objections and sees that the vast majority of the people of Ayrshire object to opting out, he will give democratic and fair-minded consideration to the consultative process and, at best, abandon the idea of opting out or at least postpone it for the foreseeable future?

Mr. Lang: I do not doubt that the majority of opinion as expressed in the submissions was opposed to the opting out process, although it is impossible to categorise opinions in the way that the hon. Gentleman would wish. Much though I understand the worries expressed by residents of the district to be served by the hospital, one must also take account of the basis of their concern, and the misinformation which has caused their alarm. I must take account of the quality of representations as well as the sheer quantity. The application is measured against four clearly published criteria which include patient care, the competence of the management, the involvement of professional and clinical staff and the financial viability of the application. That is the basis on which I shall consider the application, and I will do so carefully.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has already decided to refuse the trust application from the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert arid to suspend the applications from Foresterhill and Ayrshire South hospitals, designating them as shadow trusts, whatever that means? When will the Secretary of State make a decision and give us an answer on that most important issue? Rather than procrastinating with shadow trusts, why does he not do what the incoming Labour Government will do and abandon the ill-conceived, ill-considered, useless and unwanted ideas about trust hospitals?

Mr. Lang: I have not reached a conclusion on any of the applications before me. I am giving them the most careful

and thorough consideration, and I shall reach a decision and announce it as soon as I can. I certainly shall not follow the example of the last Labour Government's handling of the health service. We have achieved a dramatic improvement as a result of the extra funding that we have put into the health service in the past 12 years.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I did not call the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and I know that the hospital is in his constituency, but perhaps he will be patient.

Tourism

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the value of grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The Scottish tourist board estimates that in 1991–92 payments under the section 4 scheme of capital assistance will total £3·5 million. I am satisfied, and this has been confirmed by a recent independent review, that that support is effective in generating investment and jobs.

Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend's answer will be widely welcomed by the tourist industry not just in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom, but will he say a little more about the results of the independent review to which he referred? Can he assure me that, if he has not already done so, he will send a copy of that report to our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I can confirm that that review showed that there was a clear need for section 4 support in Scotland. During the period 1983–84 to 1989–90, the scheme assisted 902 projects, disbursed £31·6 million of board funds at constant 1990 prices, and produced total tourism investment of £197·2 million at 1990 prices. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, following the report of the Select Committee on Employment, and I can give an assurance that if the consultants' report to which I referred has not yet reached the Department of Employment, it will do so as soon as possible.

Mr. McAllion: Has the Minister read the reports in today's press of record numbers of passengers passing through Scottish airports? Will he confirm that most of them are tourists, many of whom are travelling north for a last glimpse of a rare species on the point of extinction in Scotland—Scottish Tory Members? Will he further confirm that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office have been recommended for a Scottish tourism award for their determination to self-destruct in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I have been described as many things, but that is the first time I have been described as a tourist attraction. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the increased numbers of passengers going through Scottish airports-especially Glasgow airport, following the Government's excellent decision to allow transatlantic flights from that airport.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. and attractive Friend congratulate Perth and Kinross district council on the dynamic quality of its work in attracting vast benefits to Scotland and Scottish industry by means of its policy of twinning with Pskov in Russia and Haikou on Hainan island in China, this year bringing to Perth the most valuable exhibition of icons in the world? [Interruption.] I should tell Opposition Members who are giggling, and who will also benefit from this, that the council is also twinning with Cognac.

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is right to praise Perth and Kinross district council. Perth has many colourful attractions for tourists, it enjoys a high quality of life and I am sure that it will continue successfully to attract national and international tourists.

Patients Charter

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost of the launch of the patients charter in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: The cost of the production and launch of the patients charter to date is £29,316. We expect to stimulate significant improvements in NHS performance, particularly on waiting times, as a result.

Mrs. Michie: Does the Secretary of State agree that the staff of the national health service are dedicated and caring and have achieved many of the aims spelt out in that glossy document? Does he agree that what they need is support and proper resources so that they can carry out their work, not what has been happening over the past 12 years—continual restructuring and reforms which do the service no good and break up the comprehensive national health service that we all know?

Mr. Lang: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's complimentary remarks about the quality of the staff in the health service. That is why I particularly welcome the enthusiastic way in which they have embraced the patients charter and the accompanying document on internal management in the health service, "Framework for Action".
As for resources, the hon. Lady will know that we spent about £3 billion on the health service in Scotland last year, which is more than £600 per head for every man, woman and child in the country and represents an increase of about 38 per cent. over and above the cost of living in the past 12 years. Resources are there in plenty; what we are now achieving is an improved application of those resources. That is what the patients charter is about, and that is why it is so warmly welcomed.

Mr. Favell: To an Englishman like me, it is a source of astonishment that Scots should intransigently oppose any kind of change in the health service. No one has done more to advance the frontiers of medicine than the Scots, yet the Opposition oppose any sort of change. Do not the Scots realise that with better techniques, new medical discoveries and more efficacious drugs many more people would be treated if only the health service were to change?

Mr. Lang: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says, and the pride which I and my fellow Scots have in the health service in Scotland is a reflection of the achievements of the past 12 years and the resources that we

have put into it. As a result, 900,000 more patients were treated last year than in 1979, and that has resulted in in-patient waiting lists being 21 per cent. lower than in 1979.

Mr. Wilson: In total, how much does the Scottish Office intend to spend this year on thinly disguised party political propaganda, including vacuous glossy charters? Will he confirm that last year the Scottish Office spent £2·6 million on advertising alone, which is 10 times the figure for 1979? Why should the Tory party not pay for its own advertising out of party political funds rather than constantly using taxpayers' money to try to get its message across? The figure of £2·6 million is equal to almost £300,000 per Tory MP in Scotland. Is the taxpayer getting value for money?

Mr. Lang: There is no question of the Government using public funds for party political purposes, and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that. Of course, the Scottish Office runs a number of public information campaigns and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to do that to encourage the improvement of health in various ways. The patients charter is aimed at improving the quality of the delivery of health care in Scotland and at making patients aware of their rights, thereby helping to improve even more the delivery of the health service.

Heart Specialists

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the number of heart specialists working in national health service hospitals in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have increased funding for the cardiac services this year by a quarter bringing the total to £20 million.

Mr. Martin: Physicians are concerned at the fact that heart patients sometimes have to wait between three months and a year for surgery. Some patients do not even get the chance of surgery because they have waited too long. There is great concern that in a hospital such as Stobhill a patient with heart warning signs can receive angiography examinations within a week, but in places such as Ayrshire and Argyllshire physicians have to keep patients waiting longer on medication. Surely that is unfair. If we had more specialists and more facilities, heart patients could be dealt with in a proper manner.

Mr. Forsyth: Half the patients who require heart surgery are dealt with immediately, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that some patients have to wait. Whether a patient needs to be admitted immediately is a clinical decision. The number of patients being treated has risen enormously, and 3,000 heart patients are now receiving surgery. We have expanded the programme in terms of the number of centres where treatment is provided, and at the beginning of next year we shall carry out the first heart transplant operations in Scotland. Therefore, there has been a major expansion. We are also expanding capacity, especially through Greater Glasgow health board which is using the private sector so that an extra 120 patients may be treated. I am acutely aware of the importance of what the hon. Gentleman says and I hope that it may be possible to make further progress in


expanding the programme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there has been a major expansion.

Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister aware that over the past year some Scottish health boards have issued letters to general practitioners instructing them to refer only urgent cases for essential treatments such as physiotherapy and to hold the rest on file? Does that mean that there is now a waiting list to go on to the waiting list?

Mr. Forsyth: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to provide me with details I shall certainly look into the matter. The hon. Gentleman has clearly studied this issue and will know that three quarters of all patients in Scotland are dealt with within four weeks and that half are dealt with immediately. The record of the health service is improving dramatically and waiting lists are now very much shorter than they were when the Government first took office. Every Labour Government has left office with longer waiting lists.

RENAVAL Programme

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with representatives of district councils and European Commission officials concerning the implementation of the RENAVAL programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allan Stewart: There have been a number of discussions about the implementation of the RENAVAL programme between Scottish Office officials, representatives of the local partnerships, which include district councils, and officials of the European Commission.

Dr. Godman: Why has there been such a lamentable delay in the implementation of the RENAVAL programme? Is it not the case that those responsible for the disgraceful delay are to be found in St. Andrew's house? Many projects and organisations, such as the Clyde ports authority, Inverclyde district council and community groups, are seeking assistance in developing economic and community projects. The Auch mountain glen project, which would restore a local beauty spot, has remarkable local support, but it is being thwarted by the obduracy of the Minister and his officials. They should play the game by my constituency.

Mr. Stewart: I reject the hon. Gentleman's criticism, and I can reassure him on the present position. The revised projects for the RENAVAL programme for Fife and Strathclyde were recently agreed. The European Commission has said that: it hopes that the projects will receive formal approval by the end of the year. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Strathclyde programme, which will be worth some £20 million ecu, which is £15 million.

Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston Bypass

Mr. Lambie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he is going to announce the start of the Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The preparation of the Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass scheme is continuing. A public local inquiry may be required to consider the remaining objections to the scheme. Negotiations are however continuing with the affected parties.
Once the scheme is fully prepared it will be considered for a construction start in the light of the competing priorities and level of available resources.

Mr. Lambie: I suppose that I should be happy with that response. I have waited 20 years for a decision on the Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass, and I am sure that the Minister will give me a favourable result before I retire at the next election. Will the Minister confirm that he has received the results of the review of the trunk road system in Scotland and that the bypass, once it has been approved, will be given first priority in this list of trunk roads?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the review, which was commissioned in 1989. The results of the study are being analysed and will assist in the development of our policy for the management and improvement of all Scotland's trunk road network. Once the results of the review have been analysed, an executive summary will be produced, setting out the key strategic results. This will be available on request and is expected to be completed in the next few months. As to negotiations with the statutory objector, these are being pursued and we shall do our best to reach a satisfactory conclusion on the hon. Gentleman's constituency project.

Youth Unemployment

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the level of youth unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: In July 1991, the latest date for which information is available, there were 73,887 people aged under 25 years unemployed in Scotland. This represents 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom total compared with 14 per cent. in July 1989.

Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister aware that I have been asking this question, mostly of him, for the past 13 years and that that reply reflects how serious is youth unemployment in Scotland? Much of the real figure is concealed by half-baked schemes concocted by his Department, which do not reveal the real position. Do we not need to have real training for real jobs on the same basis as our major European competitors, notably the Germans? If we do not have that, we shall not be in a competitive position in the future.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt welcome the fact that unemployment in his constituency fell last month, as it did throughout Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should wait to see the figures. As to the general point, we give a guarantee of a training place for all 16 or 17-year-olds who are not in full-time employment or education. As far as I know, that guarantee is given by no other European country. The current 300,000 youth training places in the United Kingdom compare with the lamentable 7,000 or so under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Opposition Members are always doughty fighters when claiming that they wish to preserve youth employment. Has my hon. Friend reflected on the likely effect of Labour's policy to establish a minimum wage of £3·20 per hour for every 16-year-old—and, indeed, on the effect on recruitment to the armed forces if defence spending were reduced by 50 per cent? That seems to be what Opposition parties want.

Mr. Stewart: I believe that, in that last instance, my hon. Friend is referring to the policy of the Liberal Democrats. He is, however, entirely right about the effect that a national minimum wage would have on jobs, especially jobs for young people. According to a number of independent commentators, up to 1·2 million jobs could be lost.

Mr. Worthington: Opposition Members are tired of the current complacency about youth unemployment. A guarantee is of value only if it is honoured. In Tayside, 533 young people are now unemployed; in Central region, 500 are unemployed. These are the 16 to 18-year-olds to whom the Government have given a guarantee.
The shortage of jobs is especially bad in traditional craft apprenticeships, in which many young people wish to work. Lothian now has 3,000 unemployed youngsters; that is 22 per cent. up on last year's figure. Strathclyde has a shortage of more than 3,000 opportunities. All that is concealed beneath a cloak of commercial confidentiality. The Minister is walking away from the problem, and he must stop doing so. Let us have a full independent review of the extent of youth unemployment in Scotland, and end the Government's complacency.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Stewart: I am going to answer. Today I checked the position in every local enterprise company. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Central region. It is clear that Forth Valley Enterprise is well on schedule towards ensuring that its end-of-year target is achieved. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Lothian; there are sufficient places on Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Ltd. to meet demand. Scottish Enterprise Tayside currently has 2,800 young people in training, and nearly 1,500 have entered the scheme since I April.
The guarantees will be met by local enterprise companies throughout Scotland. What the hon. Gentleman says about me does not concern me; but, if he is calling the local enterprise companies liars, I suggest that he repeat that outside the House.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of NHS trusts.

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had supporting the principle of hospitals becoming trusts outside the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: NHS trusts form an important part of the national health service, providing services to patients free at the point of delivery. I am at present considering applications for trust status from three Scottish hospitals.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen)—whom I am pleased to welcome to the House—will confirm, 100 per cent. of those who voted in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election voted against the opt-out of Foresterhill? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be contrary to the interests of patient care to force through a proposal that is opposed by consultants, nursing staff, general practitioners, patients and the general public? Will he now listen to the people of Scotland, abandon the current policy and pursue policies that have the support of the people?

Mr. Lang: On behalf of my hon. Friends, I am happy to welcome the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) to the House, and to congratulate him on his success in the by-election. We look forward to his participation in our affairs, and wish him a fulfilling time during his time in the House—however long or short that may be.
I have already spelt out in great detail the criteria that I shall apply when considering Foresterhill's application for trust status. It is a complex and detailed process, which deserves such treatment. Of course I take account of feeling in the area; but, as I said earlier, I also take account of the way in which feeling has been influenced by the misleading statements that have been put about over recent months.
I have no doubt that trust status for hospitals can be an enormous success, as it has proved to be south of the border. It can create the opportunity for local management to bring the delivery of health care closer to the people whom it serves, and give it freedom to run its own affairs. I shall take careful account of all aspects of the application before reaching a decision.

Mr. McAvoy: I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In my constituency the Rutherglen Liberal Democrats supported the privatisation of care for the elderly.
When will the dogmatic Secretary of State for Scotland realise that the people of Scotland see NHS trusts as the thin edge of the wedge for privatisation of the health service, and that they do not want them?

Mr. Lang: Far from being dogmatic, our objective is to achieve the best possible delivery of health care through a health service that continues to be free at the point of delivery to patients. There is mounting evidence from south of the border that trust status has helped the hospitals that have achieved it to improve their delivery of health care and to expand the services that they can offer. If that is the case I imagine that more Scots will wish to take advantage of trust status. I read with interest in today's edition of The Courier and Advertiser, Dundee that the Dundee royal infirmary and Kings Cross hospital are beginning to consider the possibility of applying.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to those who indulge in unnecessary and unwarranted smear campaigns that NHS trust hospitals are treating 10 per cent. more patients than were being treated a year ago? Will not people in Scotland quickly benefit from having several NHS trust hospitals?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his view of the position south of the border. I was interested to see that the mid-Cheshire hospitals are increasing their eye


services by up to 50 per cent., that for Manchester central hospitals a day-care centre for cataract surgery has opened, and that in south Devon 67 new posts are to be created. Plainly, many of the hospitals south of the border that have applied for trust status are making considerable advances in the delivery of patient care.

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman has said that in reaching his decision he would have to take account of the quality of the representations. Does he think that such an argument will help him, given that the objections, come from the doctors, nurses and auxiliaries, who are themselves the health of the hospital, and who will be responsible for its continuing health? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the theory that he would be happy to drop the whole unhappy business, but that his Minister responsible for health takes a different view? Is it right that the future of the hospitals should depend on an undignified ideological tug-of-war in the Scottish Office bunker? When will the right hon. Gentleman summon up the courage to make a decision on the applications?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the applications originate from the people who run the hospitals, because of the advantages that are to be had, through local management, for local people. That must be borne in mind. There is nothing doctrinaire about our approach to the matter. We are concerned to continue to build on our magnificent record in improving the delivery of health care. As I have said, I shall consider each application on its merits and according to the criteria. I shall make an announcement as soon as I reach a decision.

Tower Blocks

Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for assisting councils to increase security in high tower block housing.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend takes the question of security in high-rise housing very seriously.
Expenditure needs, including measures to improve security in high-rise tower blocks, are taken fully into account in the distribution of housing revenue account capital allocations and housing support grant.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that most people who live in that type of accommodation do not believe that the Government take the problem seriously enough, and that we now urgently require either a direct grant or an allowance for capital borrowing to provide concierge-type services in high tower blocks in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that old people in places such as Ibroxholm Oval are now sitting in their houses paralysed with fear, because they are the targets of the criminal element in our communities? They are the most vulnerable people. They are afraid to stay in in case their doors are kicked in, but they are also afraid to go out in case their homes are done in while they are out. Will the Minister pay more urgent attention to the problem? It now requires Government action.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am well aware that two of the three tower blocks in Ibrox in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—Iona court and Broomloan court—have concierge services that are working extremely well. The further expansion of that excellent scheme has a

great deal to recommend it, but the hon. Gentleman must make representations to Glasgow district council, which has been allocated more than £101 million this year in respect of housing revenue account for capital investment. I should also make it clear that, in recent days, we have allocated further sums of more than £9 million for Scotland, in addition to the £4 million allocated for specific projects for homelessness, which we think will also assist. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman take the matter up with his council.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the concierge scheme introduced by Glasgow district council, involving controlled entry and video surveillance, is proving successful in the 80 blocks in which it has so far been operated? Is not it a disgrace, however, that the concierge service has been developed entirely out of Glasgow district council resources and that no money for it has come from the Scottish Office? Is not it also true that, next year, its further development will be restricted to three more blocks, whereas there are 170 tower blocks in Glasgow in which it has not yet been developed? Is not it now time that the Minister acted to solve the problems of high-rise blocks?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall, of course, take these matters into account before making the provisional allocations in December. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the schemes have been highly successful, but I take issue with him on his assertion that the matter should be taken out of the hands of the district council and placed in the hands of the Scottish Office. It is much better that the district council should have the responsibility for choosing its own priorities. I repeat that I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks before we make our allocations.

Nurses

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many student nurses qualified in Scotland last year; and how many secured permanent employment within the national health service.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: In the year ending March 1991, 2,917 students in Scotland qualified for registration as first level nurses. Approximately 4,500 qualified nurses have secured employment in the national health service in Scotland during that period.

Mr. Brown: Is not it clear that many qualified nurses are not getting jobs in the health service? That is disgraceful because we know that, if resources were made available to extend the Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh and provide the promised new hospital in Leith, many more nurses and other medics could be employed to provide the service that they are trained to provide. If the Government claim that the health service is safe in their hands, will they do something about it and provide the resources, so that hospitals—particularly in the Edinburgh area—are given the back-up that they deserve?

Mr. Forsyth: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman had framed his supplementary before hearing my answer to his question, in which I made it clear that the number of nurses who were employed during that period was far greater than the number who qualified. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under this Government, the


number of nurses employed in Scotland has increased by one third. That is a magnificent record. Moreover, their pay has increased by 40 per cent., whereas it went down by 25 per cent. when the Labour Government were in office.

National Health Service Trusts

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had with hon. Members on each of the proposals for setting up national health service trusts.

Mr. Lang: There have been no formal meetings with hon. Members on proposals for setting up national health service trusts.

Mr. Foulkes: Why is the Secretary of State afraid to meet Ayrshire Labour MPs? Is it because we will point out that the consultants, general practitioners, radiographers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, the Ayrshire local health council, all four district councils and the four Members of Parliament who bothered to make a submission were against the proposal to opt out—that all those 200 submissions were against it? It is an insult to all the people who made the submissions for the Secretary of State to suggest that all those professionals are accepting misleading statements and that the quality of their submissions is not as good as those of the handful of people in favour. Will the right hon. Gentleman now throw off the veto of his Minister of State and have the courage to meet us to argue and discuss the case?

Mr. Lang: Neither I nor my colleagues are afraid of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) or his hon. Friends who represent Ayrshire, however much they may frighten each other. There is a statutory procedure laid down for the consultation process. I am in no doubt about the hon. Gentleman's views as he has tabled parliamentary questions on the matter, he took part in the debate on the regulations on 1 May, he spoke in the Scottish Grand Committee on 9 July and he submitted his views in the consultation process. It would be inequitable to those who take a contrary view to that of the hon. Gentleman if I were to see him exceptionally, in addition to all the other representations that I have received from him, now that the consultation period is over and I am reaching a conclusion on the matter.

Hypothermia

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the resource implications for the health service in Scotland of the incidence of hypothermia in the winter months.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The NHS is very conscious of the potential for an increased incidence of hypothermia in the winter months and health board plans take account of the need to provide a higher level of services in winter.

Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for his reply, but is it not about time that something was done to help senior citizens and the long-term sick? Every year we read about people who have died as a result of hypothermia or from a disease caused by hypothermia, but nothing is done. Every year people are asked to write in and beg for money.

Is it not time that the Government got off their behinds and made it compulsory for a payment to be made every year to every senior citizen in this land?

Mr. Forsyth: The Labour party cannot hold a candle to the Government's record in terms of helping elderly people with the costs of heating. The hon. Gentleman would do well to familiarise himself with the keep warm this winter campaign run by the Scottish Office which has received every support from local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals in respect of which he has received an expression of interest in opting out or establishing a national health service trust.

Mr. Forsyth: Three hospital units have applied for NHS trust status—South Ayrshire, the Royal Scottish national hospital and the Foresterhill hospitals group. In addition, formal expressions of interest have been received from the Victoria infirmary, Glasgow, the West Grampian hospitals unit, the Princess Margaret Rose hospital in Edinburgh, and Lothian college of nursing and midwifery.

Mr. Darling: Can the Minister justify the payment of more than £234,000 of public money to accountants, bureaucrats and consultants to prepare opting-out submissions when that money can be better used to reduce waiting lists or to make a donation to the appeal for the Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh instead of being used to propagate Tory party propaganda which is not wanted by the people of Scotland and which would damage the health service in Scotland? What possible justification can the Minister have for that other than his trying to pursue a policy which is completely discredited north and south of the border?

Mr. Forsyth: The moneys provided for the preparation of NHS trust proposals are in addition to the moneys provided for patient care. If the hon. Gentleman were interested in patient care, instead of opposing NHS trust proposals in principle, he would look at the merits of the proposals and decide whether they should go ahead on the basis of the interests of patient care—and that is precisely what my right hon. Friend will do. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider examples from south of the border, he will see that trusts there are cutting waiting lists, employing more doctors, treating more patients and providing a wider range of services at times convenient to patients. It is sheer dogma by the Labour party to reject them out of hand without even considering individual applications.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I endorse most vigorously what my hon. Friend has just said about the benefits of NHS trusts operating within the health service. There are two trusts in my constituency that offer improved patient care and have taken on more staff. Is it not time that Scotland was able to enjoy the benefits of improved patient care that NHS trusts offer patients in England and Wales?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right. I hope everyone in Scotland understands the position of all the Opposition parties. Even if an NHS trust can be demonstrated to be


in the interests of patients to reduce waiting lists and provide a better quality of service, they would reject it because they put politics before patients.

Scottish Government

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the subject of Scottish government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allan Stewart: A range of representations has been received on the subject of Scottish government.

Mr. Galloway: Now that the Government's risible rump of 10 Scottish Members of Parliament has been reduced to the nefarious nine, and now that the Secretary of State for Scotland arid virtually every one of that nefarious nine trembles on the edge of the abyss of a total

political wipeout in Scotland, will the Government finally see the sense of coming to the negotiating table and talking about Scottish government? If not, how few Tory Members do there need to be in Scotland before it is accepted that the status quo is no longer tenable?

Mr. Stewart: This Government will fight the next general election as a Conservative and Unionist Government. On the by-elections, Iangbaurgh strongly suggests that the Labour party will not have the chance to implement its half-baked proposals for a Scottish Assembly, as proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention—it would increase taxes, be a constitutional impossibility and lead to constant feuding between Westminster and Edinburgh. That is no answer to Scotland's problems or opportunities. Of course, there is a constitutional choice for the people of Scotland—it is between the Union and independence.

Points of Order

Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise as a result of the intervention by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). I was here from half-past two. The hon. Gentleman came in just five minutes ago. I stood up for six questions, not least for question No. 3, in which I have a constituency interest. In the light of the by-election result in Scotland and the fact that we have an opportunity only once a month to put our constituency interests, I appeal to you not to hear frivolous comments from Conservative Members but only real issues that concern Scottish Members of Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help. This is a United Kingdom Parliament. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) has as much right as anyone else to ask a question on a matter of general interest to the whole House of Commons. I am aware that it is not possible for me to call every Scottish Member at Scottish Question Time, but I thought that it was fair today—I hope that the House will agree—to get as far down the Order Paper as I possibily could.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We managed to get down to question No. 19, and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) had already asked a question. That was not bad.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be appropriate to remind the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that this is the United Kingdom Parliament? If he wants home rule for Scotland, he can have it, and then we will have home rule for England as well.

Mr. Speaker: I have just said that this is a United Kingdom Parliament.

Sir David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the difficulty in which you are placed the fact that there are now only four Government Back-Bench Members representing Scotland, and 63 of different parties on the Opposition side of the House? Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if you are obliged to continue to apply the archaic rule in total contradiction of the balance of the parties in Scotland, this place will look increasingly irrelevant to the people of Scotland.

Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point at a time, please. I must keep a balance in this House. Hon. Members from Scottish constituencies have as much right as an hon. Member from an English constituency to raise a question on defence or any other matter—[Interruption.] And they do. Equally, the whole House will have seen for itself how far we have moved down the Order Paper today and that I have called a number of English Members on hospital trust matters.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that there is a general recognition on the Opposition side of the House that you have a difficult job at Scottish Question Time. I recognise that it is difficult to balance interests. That difficult situation is made infinitely worse and more galling to colleagues who have been rising repeatedly, question after question, without success, when a Conservative Member swans in, three quarters of the way through Scottish Question Time, and is instantly called.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) was not instantly called.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps those hon. Members who have raised points of order have done a service to the hon. Members who wish to take part in the ballot. If I take one more, two more Members can sign the book.

Mr. Thomas Graham: As a Back Bencher, I need the opportunity of raising questions at Scottish Question Time. It is lamentable that the Government have not set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which could help us to deal with Scottish matters.

Mr. Speaker: That is as may be.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I had better take one from a Conservative Member now. I call a Member from Cornwall. [Laughter.]

Mr. David Harris: Is not the root cause of your difficulties about the complaint that has been raised, Mr. Speaker, Scotland's gross over-representation in this House on matters relating to other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be involved with constitutional matters of that kind.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think that I had better take one from the Scottish National party.

Mr. Alex Salmond: This, of course, is the United Kingdom Parliament—many of us think that that is exactly the problem. However, as you have some discretion in these matters, Mr. Speaker, and while we wait for the Scottish electorate to remove the remainder of the Scottish Conservative party from this House, would it not be appropriate for you to give priority to Scottish Members at Scottish Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I have done exactly that.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should now move on, because everybody——

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose——

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I shall have to put a 10-minute limit on speeches, and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) might be affected by that.

Mr. Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very well: I shall trade the hon. Gentleman a point of order for a speech.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am raising a point of order because my understanding is that this is the United Kingdom Parliament, which has representatives from all over the United Kingdom. The cornerstone of our democratic system is hon. Members' right to ask questions and to have those questions answered. Can you confirm, Sir, that you keep a record of the questions that have been asked and that, although the Scots comprise less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, their representatives regularly ask more than 9 per cent. of the questions that are raised in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I must now bring this matter to a conclusion. I do indeed keep a list of questions, but I advise hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies that the next time we have Scottish Questions those hon. Members who have been called today will not stand quite such a good chance of being included next time.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 29 NOVEMBER

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Derek Conway
Mr. Gavin Strang
Mr. John Bowis

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need any more points of order. I have taken my final point of order this afternoon. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — Asylum Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment——

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let me finish this first, please.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the pressure to participate in the debate, I shall put a precautionary limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. If hon. Members who are called before 7 o'clock keep broadly to the time limit, it may be possible, in the interests of the whole House, for the occupant of the Chair to relax that limit later in the debate.

Mr. Madden: rose——

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Madden: I am sorry to detain you and the House, but this is an important matter of order which affects the Bill. Later this month, the Commission for Racial Equality will consider instigating a judicial review against the Government's proposals to withdraw the green legal aid form in cases of political asylum and immigration. What opportunity will be given to a Law Officer to give advice to the House on the matter? The Home Secretary has told the Commission that he cannot give advice on the matter. There is widespread anxiety that the Bill may be a clear breach of the Race Relations Act 1976.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can raise those matters when I call him in the debate, as I hope to do. The Law Officers may attend the Standing Committee. That is a normal procedure.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill deals with the treatment of asylum seekers and procedures for determining their claims. As I made clear to the House on 2 July, the numbers of people seeking asylum pose major problems both in Britain and throughout the world. There have been more than half a million applications for asylum in Europe this year. Germany estimates that it will receive about a quarter of a million applications. The United Kingdom total, including dependants, will exceed 50,000–10 times the figure only three years ago. By the end of October we had received some 38,800 principal applications during this calendar year.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that there are 17 million refugees and asylum seekers in the world. A phenomenon of that order cannot be ignored. It is not scaremongering or playing the numbers game to recognise and respond to changes on that scale. On the contrary, it would be a gross irresponsibility for the Government to ignore them and pretend that numbers do not matter.
On the continent, political movements are already emerging which thrive on the flow of refugees and exploit naked nationalism. In France, Le Pen's party seems to have 30 per cent. support in opinion polls. Young fascists march in Germany and chant the slogans of the 1930s. In Austria this week, a far right-wing party has just won 22 per cent. of the votes, campaigning on a slogan of "Vienna for the Viennese". Those are disturbing trends, with resonances from the darkest period of European history. We must ensure that such movements are not given the opportunity to develop in our own country.
We have been working at improving race relations in Britain for over 30 years, under successive Governments. Some of the speeches by politicians of all parties on the continent in recent months would be simply unacceptable from a politician in Britain. I draw some comfort from that fact, because it reflects our maturity in dealing with such matters. But we must keep working at it. One of the most important messages that we must give to everyone in our country is that we have in place proper, fair and effective policies to deal with the unprecedented flow of asylum seekers.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baker: No, I want to get into my speech. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend in a moment.
I remind the House of the measures which the Government have already taken, and of four in particular. First, we have increased by five times the staff who determine asylum claims to over 500 during this financial year; 330 are already in post. Secondly, we have increased from £1,000 to £2,000 the charge under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 for bringing improperly documented passengers to Britain. Thirdly, we have placed document specialists at Lagos airport. A second team is currently working at Moscow airport, which has become a major transit point for people without proper documents. Plans are well advanced for similar exercises elsewhere. Fourthly, we intend to increase the provision of detention places by 290.

Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when his predecessor introduced the Immigration Act 1987, he talked about providing a better customer service from Lunar house in Croydon. Does he not share part of the responsibility for the Government's failure to allocate more resources to deal with asylum applications at least four year ago when the problem first arose? Does he accept that what he has announced is not sufficient to deal with the applications from asylum seekers, let alone with other immigration applications which are bottling up Lunar house?

Mr. Baker: We are increasing resources constantly, not only at Lunar house but also in the naturalisation department in Liverpool, which is an aspect of that. We doubled resources in 1989, and as soon as I became Home Secretary, I realised that that was one of the most important issues that I would have to deal with. I therefore put in hand increases which are now in place.

Mr. Michael Morris: Does my right hon. Friend recall the case of one Viraj Mendes? He will be aware that I have taken a great interest in Sri Lanka since I have been in the House. Is he aware that that gentleman hoodwinked the nation for about eight years and that in the end his wife made it clear that the man was entirely bogus? Is he aware that the Church was totally taken in, and everyone in Sri Lanka in the end made it absolutely clear that the man was bogus? When he returned to Sri Lanka, he returned to safety and, according to the latest reports, he is now in Germany. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend's proposals are greatly to be welcomed, to ensure that Tamils who are genuine and need asylum can be properly considered.

Mr. Baker: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He specified the details of that case precisely. One of the most important points was that, after a long process when every possible avenue had been carefully and scrupulously explored, when Mr. Mendes was returned to Sri Lanka he suffered no persecution whatsoever.

Mr. Robert Hayward: In reviewing the measures that have been introduced in the past few years, my right hon. Friend referred to carriers' liability. He will recognise that that is causing substantial problems for a number of carriers. Could he review the way in which the regulations work and their impact on some carriers?

Mr. Baker: We are providing a great deal of advice and training for officials of different carriers—and not merely for British Airways, because we do not expect airline officials to be immigration officers; that is not their function. However, it is entirely right that we should ask them to check whether documentation is correct. I remind the House that we are not alone in doing so. Virtually every other country in Europe does it, Canada and America do it—fines in America are $5,000, and in Canada the penalty is $3,000—because all countries recognise that airlines have responsibility in that matter.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: There appears to be bipartisan agreement that bogus asylum seekers should be dealt with, but there is a good deal of concern among voluntary societies and practitioners. Could my right hon. Friend make it clear that, during the passage of the Bill, he and his colleagues will have consultations with those who make representations to ensure that their worries about links between people with different claims and the causes of large-scale immigration are considered together?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I shall certainly give that undertaking. We have already received a considerable number of representations. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for immigration matters met a delegation from various refugee groups yesterday. We shall certainly continue to receive representations during the passage of the Bill.

Ms. Clare Short: rose——

Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must proceed with my speech.

Ms. Short: Will the Home Secretary admit that the problem of bogus applications, and there are some, is entirely the responsibility of the Government, in that the enormous delays in processing applications, which cause great fear for real refugees, have encouraged bogus


organisers of fraudulent claims, such as the friend of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)? I wrote a long time ago to his Department and asked it to move against him and the Department failed to do so. There is a simple remedy: speed up the processing, and we will not have the problem. We do not need any other changes or legislation. The Government's inefficiency bears the whole responsibility.

Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Lady will vote for the Bill, because its purpose is to speed up the process. It is an absurdity to say that we are responsible for bogus applicants. Can the Government be held to blame for such claims as this—a Turkish Cypriot claiming asylum on the basis that her mother did not get on with her husband and was trying to break up her marriage? That is the sort of claim that one gets. I do not want to make too much of them, but there are bogus applications and they are completely clogging up the system.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Baker: To get the balance right, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the serious situation that my right hon. Friend has outlined and the excellent policies that he is introducing to deal with it, can we have a clear assurance that the Government will resist any proposals at the Maastricht discussions to transfer immigration control to Brussels or the European Economic Community?

Mr. Baker: I have already made our position on that extremely clear. I am wholly opposed to a transfer of competence to the European Community on matters of asylum and immigration. That is our negotiating position. The matter is rather tangential to this Bill, but I am glad to clarify the position.
To respond to the phenomenon of asylum seeking is not in any way racialist. This is not about discriminating against non-white applicants. Eastern Europe remains a major cause for concern. Despite the growth of democracy there, the number of people from eastern Europe seeking asylum in the west has increased significantly. Nearly half of Germany's huge total of asylum seekers are European.
Last week, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) accused me of being unduly alarmist when I referred to the figure of 7 million Russians wanting to leave the Soviet Union. That was not my figure; it was given by a senior Soviet spokesman at a conference in Vienna that I attended with other Ministers of the Interior at the beginning of this year. He surprised and alarmed us all by saying that, following the liberalisation of exit controls, he expected that up to 7 million Soviet citizens would want to work in the west. Many might seek to use the asylum route and, indeed, it would be naive to think otherwise.
I was appalled when, in his party conference speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that we were preparing to play the race card in this matter. He has flirted with that theme. He has ducked, bobbed and weaved with it, but he is clearly embarrassed by it now. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has not attempted to get into this murky area. He has not followed the right hon. Gentleman's grubby lead.
As I said at the Conservative party conference, I want to make it clear that our policy is colour blind. It applies to people wheresoever they come from, whether Africa, Asia or eastern Europe.
The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he has been searching for a way to do nothing about this problem. He would prefer to turn a blind eye to the problem of asylum seekers around the world. When he appears on television or in the media, he pooh-poohs and belittles it, and gives the impression that we are exaggerating the problem. He will not face up to the problem.
Faced with the evidence that we have, any responsible Home Secretary would act as I have acted. For the right hon. Gentleman to oppose the Bill and underestimate the problem that faces us shows that he is completely unsuited to hold this office. I suggest to him that he should overcome his natural sloth and complacency. [Interruption.] The only race card being played is being played by the right hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Baker: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks).

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a question not of being racialist but of being realistic? Is there not some hypocrisy when the Opposition talk of problems of unemployment and housing, yet suggest that we add to them—[Interruption.]—by advocating an open-door immigration policy that will mean more people coming to our constituencies and competing for homes and jobs? The people of Wolverhampton, all colours and creeds, live daily with that reality. May I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has their full support and that they are completely opposed to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend should know that I will deal with the interaction between immigration policy and asylum seeking later. It is realistic to recognise that there is a significant problem with which we must deal and that it is right to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Baker: I have given way a great deal, and I must pursue my speech.
It is clear that many people are now using asylum claims as a means of evading immigration control. As numbers rise, a decreasing proportion are found to qualify for refugee status. In 1980, in the United Kingdom, 64 per cent. of claimants were recognised as refugees. Last year, the figure was about 25 per cent. In Germany, it was less than 5 per cent.
I am anxious to find common ground in the country on this matter and I strongly suggest that it is important that that common ground is found. My view is shared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. His director of international protection, Michel Moussalli, wrote in "Refugees" magazine—the UNHCR publication—in May:
The majority of people coming as asylum seekers into Europe are not refugees but economic migrants.
He also said that they
clog up the asylum procedures which cannot function normally any longer. This in turn proves to be an attraction


to many destitute persons abroad, who feel that if they apply for refugee status in a Western country, they will be taken care of by the social welfare system of that country for a year or two, or even longer, while their claims are being examined.
Those are the words of the international protection director of the UNHCR, and he has touched upon an important point.
Applicants benefit from delays in determination systems and the complicated review procedures after the initial decision. That pattern is repeated across Europe; that is why we must ensure that we reduce and not add to the delays when we change our system and introduce new rights.

Mr. David Winnick: rose——

Mr. Baker: I have given way a great deal, and I must pursue my speech.
The category of "refugee" is defined in the 1951 United Nations convention. It is important to recognise the philosophical background to that definition. There is a basic assumption in international law—and in common sense—that a state will protect its citizens. That is the very reason for the existence of states. The 1951 convention is about citizens whom a state is actively seeking to harm. It is not enough to say that most asylum applicants are deserving because they come from "unstable" or "strife-torn" countries. It is not enough that a state is unlucky or incompetent in its economic, social or foreign policies—that jobs or food are scarce, or that it is at war with itself or with its neighbours.
By the 1951 convention, the international community has singled out the persecution of the individual on racial, religious or political grounds as the cause for special concern. I repeat clearly today that the Government will continue to honour their commitment to people in that category. We have followed that noble tradition over the centuries, and that category certainly exists.
When considering measures to resist the exploitation of our procedures by manifestly unfounded applicants, we should not forget the clearly well founded applicants—genuine refugees who often have harrowing stories of suffering, degradation and torture. We will continue to respond sympathetically to their needs.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that the argument is not about bogus asylum seekers? Those claimants undermine the claims of genuine asylum seekers, and no one would wish to defend them. However, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that profound disquiet has been expressed about some of the proposals in the Bill, particularly the fast-track ones? The letter published in The Times today from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster expresses the profound disquiet among many people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers. If the Bill is not amended, those genuine claimants will undoubtedly be penalised. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that on board?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am about to say. I shall deal with that point in a few moments.
I was dealing with the definition of refugees under the 1951 convention, and concentrating on the well-founded fears of persecution. There is considerable pressure for people all over the world to migrate, for all sorts of reasons. But why should the inevitable response to a

problem in one country be permanent emigration to the other side of the world? Should all the 17 million refugees whom the United Nations have identified be allowed to come to Europe if they so choose? The closer refugees remain to their own countries, the easier it is to organise their return when conditions allow. If repatriation is not possible, the United Nations considers that integration and settlement within a refugee's region is the next best alternative. Resettlement outside the region should be considered only in the last resort.
For example, why did more than 600 Angolans apply for asylum here in October alone? Angola has its problems but it has no ex-colonial links with this country. Angolans tend to speak Portuguese rather than English, and Angola directly borders four other countries. In 1969, the Organisation of African Unity agreed a convention under which member states undertook obligations for refugees in their own regions, which goes considerably further than the United Nations convention. Do Angolans really need to enter Europe in such numbers?
We are not washing our hands of the problem. The United Kingdom plays a full and honourable part, financially and diplomatically, in alleviating the suffering of refugees in regions close to their own countries. Last year, we spent some £60 million helping refugees and displaced persons overseas. The House will recall that we took a strong lead in the international effort to help the Kurds in Iraq. In that context, asylum-seeking in the west is, in many ways, a damaging and distracting sideshow. It consumes many times the global budget of the UNHCR in supporting a self-selecting minority, without addressing the real problems that lie behind the asylum-seeking flows.
I remind the House that the United Kingdom and other developed countries of Europe must assist and support the developing economies, especially in eastern Europe, to ensure that people will want to stay and strengthen those economies themselves. Yesterday's leader article on Austria in The Times concluded:
The Community must itself look east and rebuild by free trade those shattered economies if the migration on which far-right reaction feeds is to be stemmed".

Mr. Tim Janman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baker: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must resume my speech. I have not given way to Opposition Members—[Interruption.] As there is acclamation for my hon. Friend, I am delighted to give way.

Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunity for this country to help support genuine refugees abroad through various aid programmes is not helped by the fact that, according to a headline in The Times today, bogus refugees bleed Britain of £100 million through benefit fraud? Has he seen the comments of a DSS officer in the same article that benefit fraud is now a national sport and that bogus asylum seekers think that the way in which this country hands out so much money is hilarious?

Mr. Baker: Like the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr. Winnick), my hon. Friend anticipates a point that I shall come to. I shall deal with that matter in a moment. I shall deal with both points in my own way and in my own time.
The central purpose of the Bill and the rules that we have published for consultation are to speed up the


determination process and to ensure that genuine cases are promptly identified and that rejected applicants leave the country. The Bill gives new rights of appeal.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker: With great respect, I must continue; I have given way a great deal.
Clause 1 defines a claim for asylum in terms of a potential breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 convention. Clause 2, which is one of the more controversial clauses, deals with fingerprinting. The Government have been criticised on that provision, so I wish to explain why we think that it is necessary.
Clause 2 provides for the fingerprinting of all asylum applicants because more than half of those who apply at ports have disposed of their travel documents and other forms of identification before they arrive in the United Kingdom. Many of those documents are destroyed on the aeroplanes. Increasingly, applicants in this country who have been here for some time present themselves without documents and freely admit that they have passed on their documents after entering illegally——

Ms. Short: What proportion?

Mr. Baker: I can help the hon. Lady on that point. As the House knows, most asylum applications are made by people resident in this country—some 75 to 85 per cent. are made by people who have been living in this country as visitors, students or tourists for some weeks, months or years. When they seek to claim refugee status, they do so in two ways: they go to Croydon and claim it, or they apply by post. If they write in and apply by post and do not include their passport, we have no means of knowing their real identity——

Ms. Short: Answer the question.

Mr. Baker: I am now coming to the question that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) shouted out a moment ago, and I must ask her to contain her natural enthusiasm for knowledge. I am just about to answer.
In order to deal with applications by post, on I November we introduced a new system, under which those applicants who cannot establish their identity by sending their passports are called for interview. It may interest the House to know that, of the first batch of 130 interviews arranged, only one of the applicants has so far turned up.

Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker: No, I shall continue and develop my argument.
The House will know that most asylum applications are made by people who have already entered the United Kingdom and then seek to extend their stay. We have uncovered a number of cases in which individuals have made multiple applications in false identities.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: How many?

Mr. Baker: I am coming to that. The anxiety of Opposition Members to learn bad news seems to be almost unchallenged.
Other countries have the same experience, and a number of them, including France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, already take fingerprints from all asylum

applicants and make systematic comparisons. On introducing such systems, they found that between 5 and 20 per cent. of applications were multiple. We are finding the same problem. Eight asylum applicants arrested in August were found to have made 100 asylum and social security applications between them. One applicant had 49 identities and another had 34. One suspect was found in possession of 14 Department of Social Security payment books.

Ms. Short: They should be prosecuted.

Mr. Baker: They are.
A forgery kit was found which included falsified letters from the Home Office, Angolan, Gabonese and Burkina Faso birth certificates and Gabonese authenticating stamps. More than 100 cases are under investigation. Clearly, measures are needed to tackle that problem. There are 56 north London addresses under investigation at present. One address in Gravesend which was under investigation was the source of 47 asylum applications—[Interruption.] Opposition Members want the information, but they do not like it when I give it to them. A further 600 files are under suspicion—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members say that it is not a problem and the matter should be tucked away, that shows their attitude to asylum-seeking.
There are other problems relating to identity. A case was brought to me only this morning of an Angolan——

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State is not talking about the Bill.

Mr. Baker: I am talking about clause 2.
An Angolan/Zairean entered this country illegally, sought asylum and was given it. During the following Department of Social Security inquiries, it was established that he had been given asylum in France in another name and under another identity. The determination of identity, therefore, is very important.
There is now a clear practical need for fingerprinting powers in this country. There is no question, as some have suggested, of our seeking to criminalise asylum seekers. The system will be operated by the immigration department entirely separately from police records.
Clause 3 contains provisions to modify the duties on local authorities under the homelessness legislation in relation to asylum seekers. These measures will be fairer to people on local authority waiting lists, while continuing to provide protection for asylum seekers in genuine need. It is illogical that someone whose right to remain in the country permanently is still under question should be able to secure permanent accommodation in this way and even acquire the right to buy.
We therefore propose two extra tests for asylum seekers who are waiting for their asylum applications to be decided. Do they have reasonable accommodation at the moment, even if it is only temporary; and is there any other accommodation to which they could reasonably go? The Bill provides that, if they meet all these tests, local authorities have to provide only temporary accommodation until the asylum applications are decided.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Sir Philip Goodhart: rose——

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The three hon. Members who are rising are seeking to participate in the debate. It might be better if the Home Secretary completed his speech and they then made their points during the debate so as to receive an answer from the Minister who will wind up.

Mr. Baker: I have given way generously, and I think that I should pursue my explanation of the Bill.
Clause 4 provides for the curtailment of any existing leave to be in this country in another capacity when an asylum application is refused. For example, when a person is admitted as a visitor and then applies for asylum, it will usually be inappropriate to go back to treating him as a tourist. Since an asylum application is a request to be dealt with outside the normal immigration rules, it is unreasonable to treat rejected applicants as if nothing has happened and allow the regular procedures to take their course. The Bill will allow simultaneous decisions to refuse asylum, curtail leave and deport. All the issues raised can then be addressed in a single appeal.
Clause 5 and schedule 2 set out new appeal rights for all asylum seekers before removal, regardless of immigration status. Immigration and refugee organisations have pressed for this change over a number of years. The clause gives everyone an appeal right, while avoiding exploitation of the system with repeated appeals on the same facts.
Appeals will be dealt with by nominated independent immigration appeals adjudicators. Applicants will be required to obtain leave from a special adjudicator before proceeding to an oral hearing of their case, and the procedural rules outlined by the Lord Chancellor will make it absolutely clear that an adjudicator will be required to grant leave for a full oral hearing unless he is satisfied that there is no arguable case. This procedure is necessary to ensure that cases that are manifestly unfounded do not clog up the system. For example, a young man arriving at Dover on the ferry from Calais can be sent back for his asylum claim to be examined there without undue delay.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I hope that, even at this moment, we can persuade the Home Secretary to stop saying that the Bill provides automatic rights to appeal. It provides no such thing. It provides the right to apply for an appeal, to ask for an appeal, to seek leave to appeal. That is quite different, and the Home Secretary should stop repeating the fallacy.

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has not understood the Bill correctly. People applying for asylum have a right to appeal now, under the existing system. We are extending the right to appeal. For instance, if someone applies for asylum at one of our air or sea ports, he is examined by officials from the immigration department, who make a decision that is final. In future, it will not be final. Asylum seekers will be able to seek leave to appeal to an independent adjudicator, who must examine the case and deal with the appeal in one of two ways. In accordance with the Lord Chancellor's rules, he can say that there should be an oral hearing, if there is an arguable case. We expect that most cases will be like that. He will also address some cases that are manifestly unfounded, without an oral hearing. That will still be an appeal to an independent adjudicator, a procedure that does not currently exist.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary concentrate on the wording of the Bill and the rule, because they make

it absolutely clear that the right is to apply for leave to appeal? The adjudicator, about whom the Home Secretary has said so much, is entitled to refuse leave to appeal. If that happens, in law no appeal occurs. The Law Society and the Bar are unanimous in that view. Everyone who has looked objectively at the Bill makes the obvious point that leave to appeal is not the same as an appeal. Whether or not the Home Secretary knows it, his explanation makes it absolutely clear that the person who might grant leave to appeal is entitled, on nothing more than re-reading the papers, to refuse leave. That is not an appeal.

Mr. Baker: I shall justify what I have said on the grounds of several cases. The right hon. Gentleman's interpretation is wrong. The Bar Council has not made the point that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although it has made other points. We are inserting a new right for those who make applications at the port to have their case determined by an official in the Home Office and to go to an independent adjudicator, who has the choice between granting a hearing or going through the papers and carrying out the appeal process himself. That latter process is needed for clearly unfounded cases. Therefore, an independent adjudicator looks at the case again. That is a second person looking at the case, but the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be able to understand that, although I have said it three times.

Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. Friend is being most helpful in explaining the new system. Will he confirm that it is similar to cases in which there is an appeal on facts, the leave for which has to be granted by the Court of Appeal? In cases where there is a clear right of appeal on a point of law, because the adjudication was wrong in law, would there still be a right of appeal to the High Court on a prerogative writ? If there is, that is perfectly normal, and the same as a normal court case.

Mr. Baker: A later clause in the Bill makes it clear that there is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Baker: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called to speak.
Under the draft procedural rules set out by the Lord Chancellor, which have been published for consultation, an application for leave to appeal must be made not later than two days after the applicant has received notice of the decision against which he wishes to appeal. We have received representations from refugee groups and others, and I have seen the letter from the archbishop and the cardinal in today's issue of The Times I am certainly prepared to consider those representations as the Bill is debated. Those who argue for an alternative procedure must be expected to demonstrate that it would not add to the scope for abuse and delay.
Clause 6 provides a further avenue of appeal on points of law to the Court of Appeal. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). That is likely to be relevant only in a minority of cases, but it will provide a specific means of resolving matters in which a real legal point is at issue.
Clause 7 puts on a statutory basis the existing administrative arrangements for requiring visas of


passengers who are ostensibly planning to change planes at a United Kingdom airport without passing through immigration control.
I come finally to the draft immigration rules. They fit together with the Bill and the Lord Chancellor's procedural rules. The right hon. Member for Spark brook nods. They have to be seen as a complete package. Their provisions and the additional staff that we are recruiting will enable most cases to be resolved in three months, as against the current average of 20 months.
The asylum rules include, in paragraph 6, a list of criteria which may cast doubt on an applicant's credibility and may lead to refusal. Some immediate reactions to the rules have characterised these criteria as harsh and unsympathetic. Are those critics really saying that it is all right for asylum seekers to lie to us, to conceal relevant information, to destroy documents deliberately or to make multiple applications in different identities? Are they saying that, if we find them out in this sort of trickery, we should pat them on the head and pretend that it did not happen? Self-evidently, that would be absurd. It may be the case that genuine refugees will sometimes not immediately tell the whole truth, but that is something to look at in individual cases. One does not set up the system on the assumption that genuine applicants will lie.
Some critics quote the United Nations handbook on determining refugee status if they feel that there is some deficiency in our procedures. However, they do not always mention that the handbook places clear responsibility on the applicant to tell the truth and assist the examiner in full, to make an effort to provide evidence and to supply all pertinent information concerning himself and his experience in as much detail as necessary.
The asylum rules also make it clear that applications will be refused when an asylum seeker could have sought protection in a safe third country that he has been in before coming here. The aim is quickly to weed out cases where there is no question of the United Kingdom's obligations being engaged. This is fully in line with accepted international practice.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
Our proposal on political activities is often misrepresented. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did so in the debate last week, and I heard him do the same on television today. We are not saying that asylum seekers must refrain from political activity while they are here, but if they indulge in political activity with the specific intention on enhancing a claim to asylum, the High Court has made it clear that we are not obliged to accept them as refugees.
In a particular case, ex parte B, an Iranian with no history of political involvement waited until he had been refused an extension of stay before joining an opposition party in the United Kingdom, and then had photographs of himself at a demonstration printed in his brother's newspaper. That is what we are up against. The court found that the Secretary of State was justified, having regard to his applicant's faith, in rejecting his application.
The underlying intention of all these changes is to give all applicants a proper opportunity to state their case and give genuine refugees who are entitled to the United Kingdom's protection early recognition of that fact. The

option of exceptional leave will remain, but our aim is to use it only when there are genuine and compelling humanitarian factors.
The Government want to protect genuine refugees and will work for solutions to their problems, but domestic asylum policy is only part of that process. To achieve the wider objective, it is essential to preserve public sympathy for refugees—and public confidence in the fairness and firmness of our determination system is crucial to that.
Our asylum system must function within the context of our commitment to effective immigration control. The control has been distorted and strained by the growth in asylum numbers and by blatant misuse of asylum procedures. The Bill will play an important part in restoring a proper balance. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, whilst reaffirming its determination to prevent bogus asylum seekers from entering the United Kingdom, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, because of the arbitrary criteria against which asylum applications are measured and the inadequacy of the appeal system for those who are initially rejected, will result in the exclusion of men and women who have well-founded fear of persecution and death and is therefore in breach of this country's obligations under the United Nations Convention of 1951.
According to the Queen's Speech, the Bill is intended to do no more than improve the speed and efficiency with which the Home Office examines and determines applications for asylum. Were that its true purpose, and if that intention were properly reflected in its clauses, we would vote for Second Reading. Speed and efficiency in handling these applications are essential. Some of the delays that have characterised examinations have been intolerable and the Opposition have joined Amnesty International and other organisations to urge the Home Secretary both to improve procedures and to provide extra resources to deal with the applicants.
The announcement of extra resources is welcome. The nub of our complaint to the Home Secretary, however, is that the need for more speed cannot be made an excuse for the operation of less justice. In any case, it is by no means certain that the Bill's provisions will materially reduce the time that it takes to determine an asylum application. In my experience, delay is usually a result of the Home Office's failure to make a swift judgment. Yet the one stage in the whole procedure that is not given an end date in either the Bill or the attendant regulations is the date of the Home Office's eventual decision.
Let me make clear—beyond doubt, I hope—that bogus asylum seekers must be prevented from entering the country. That is an honourable and sensible objective, and our amendment reflects our determination to ensure that bogus asylum seekers are identified and denied entry. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who intervened on the Secretary of State to put on record the existence of unanimity across the Chamber and between the parties on the need to exclude such bogus asylum seekers. Such objectivity secured the hon. Gentleman's removal from the Government.
Our objection to the Bill—and we hold this view with some strength of feeling—stems not from its effect on the bogus asylum seeker, but from its consequences for the genuine refugee.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Not yet.
If the Bill is passed, some men and women with a well-founded fear of persecution will undoubtedly be returned to imprisonment, torture and possibly death. What is more, the Bill's authors must know that. The best that can be said of them is that an obsession with unjustified claims has overridden whatever conscientious concern they ever had for genuine refugees.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment.
We are not alone in our opposition to the Bill. This morning, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster criticised it in exactly the same terms as our amendment. Being of a theological disposition, they dealt with the "whited sepulchre" aspect of the Government's proposals. They said:
There is little virtue in proclaiming a willingness to open the door to genuine asylum seekers if the path to it is effectively blocked by provisions which obstruct rather than facilitate access to fair adjudication".
That amounts to the sin of the Pharisee.
I was struck by the comments made by the Home Secretary at the beginning and at the end of his speech. At the end, he announced that it was his duty to do what he could to maintain public sympathy for refugees. At the beginning, he regaled the House with Conservative club tittle-tattle about how many applications made five, and what abuses of the public system were common among refugees.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I was asked for that information by an Opposition Front Bencher, and I gave it to the House.

Mr. Hattersley: Many of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors would have regarded such bar-room tittle-tattle as beneath them.
The Bill can be seriously examined only in conjuction with the related documents that the Home Secretary issued along with it—the new immigration rules and the asylum appeals procedure rules. The Home Secretary mentioned them in passing, in the last two or three minutes of his speech; however, they are in every respect crucial to the application of the Bill that he purported to describe. Together, they demonstrate the true nature of the Bill: it is arbitrary, partial and, in some respects, retrospective. I shall take the Home Secretary through the Bill's stages and its attendant documents, as he did not go through them himself, so that the House, and perhaps even the country, will really understand its consequences.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, if the Labour party came into government, he would repeat what that party did twice when it was last in government and grant an amnesty to those awaiting a decision on their applications—to illegal immigrants, in some cases? Such people would still exist if the Labour party came into power. Would the right hon. Gentleman grant a full amnesty, as the Labour party did before, or would he accept the law as it then stood and send such people back?

Mr. Hattersley: No. We shall introduce new rules, which I shall describe at the end of my speech. We shall certainly not indulge in the altogether unattractive practice of retrospective legislation.
That brings me to the next pont that I was about to make. Clause 1 defines an asylum seeker as a person whose claim is
recorded by the Secretary of State as having been made".
That is when the processes that the Bill sets up begin, so I ask the Home Secretary a question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to at least part of my speech; a little ritual abuse and the reading of a Home Office brief is not enough for the entire afternoon. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman three or four questions, and as I complete each one I shall willingly sit down so that he can answer it straight away.
I have told the Home Secretary—apparently, he did not know before—that clause 1 says that an application begins when the Home Secretary accepts and registers such an application. Does that mean that all asylum seekers past and present will be subject to the provisions of the Bill as soon as it becomes law? Or will there be transitional arrangements for asylum seekers whose applications are outstanding?
If the Government intend to judge existing asylum seekers under the present law, it is no good the Home Secretary's telling us that the Bill will speed up the process. There are very many applications in the pipeline. If, on the other hand, existing applicants are to be judged under the new regulations, they will be subject to retrospective legislation that will deny them rights that existed when they made their applications. What is more, and perhaps worse, they will be judged according to the criteria governing the consideration of cases set out in the new immigration rules. Those rules are different from, and far harsher than, those that applied when the men and women now in the queue made their applications.
I shall mention three rules, each of which is in my view wholly unacceptable. The first rule requires immigration officials to doubt an applicant's credibility, and therefore probably to refuse his application, if the applicant
has made false representations either orally or in writing".
A related provision requires the same reaction if the applicant has
destroyed, damaged or disposed of any passport, other document or ticket relevant to his claim".
That requirement contravenes article 31 of the United Nations convention, which specifically accepts that many asylum seekers may have neither the time nor the opportunity to go through the complicated procedure of obtaining visas and the required travel documents. The rules—laid down by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—are specific on that point.
The Home Secretary talked about the rules, but he did not quote the relevant and operative sentence, which reads:
Untrue statements by themselves are not a reason for refusal of refugee status and it is the examiners responsibility to evaluate such statements in the light of all the circumstances of the case".
By ignoring that advice the Government breach the rules.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): That is exactly what our draft rules say—that those factors will reflect on the credibility of the applicant. That does not mean that the


applicant has to be refused. It means that those factors have to be taken into account, to reach a true judgment. That is exactly in line with the rules under the convention.

Mr. Hattersley: If that is the case, let us come to an agreement—which will move the argument a great deal further on—that a note should be added to the draft rule in question to the effect that, on some occasions, asylum seekers will not be able initially to give an honest explanation of their position. Let us add that specifically to the rules. Let us not merely say it here. Over the past 13 years, I have grown tired of being told, "Don't worry. The rules say one thing but you can trust Ministers to do another." In my experience, Ministers say one thing in the House and then apply the letter of the law rigidly and unyieldingly in dealing with cases, as I shall go on to show in respect of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. That is why I want such a note written into the rules, and I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary's answer to my request.
I want the Under-Secretary to confirm that the asylum seeker—pursued by the police and hunted by the security services—cannot queue up outside the British embassy and obtain the authorised papers. The idea that he can is so ludicrous that not even the Home Secretary can accept it. Equally, the Home Secretary ought to know that no British post abroad will issue visas for the purpose of asylum seeking. Many asylum seekers have to escape with no travel documents or with bogus travel documents. They are genuine, but, by definition, their papers are not. That was the case when refugees from Austria and Nazi Germany fled to this country before the war. Had the Bill been in force at the time, many of our most distinguished citizens would have been denied entry to this country in 1937, 1938 and 1939.
Another criterion against which asylum seekers will be judged is whether they had the opportunity to move to another part of the country of origin, which "might be safer". The House will note that the word used is not "safe" but "safer". That means not absolute protection but relative security. The House will also note that the words are not "will be" safer but "might be" safer. Let me ask the Home Secretary for his judgment on another point, therefore. If a Kurd in Baghdad has a genuine, well-grounded fear of persecution, is he entitled to come to the United Kingdom, or is he to be told under the rule that he should have moved into or towards a Kurdish enclave? Perhaps we may have an exact answer to that.
Yesterday, the Minister for Overseas Development was eloquent in her calls for help for the persecuted——

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer a question. Is any asylum seeker coming from Yugoslavia, parts of which are extremely dangerous, automatically a refugee? Is the fact that one comes from Yugoslavia the only thing that one has to show to demonstrate that one is a refugee, or would the right hon. Gentleman say that these matters depend on the circumstances of the particular case?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course I am not saying for a moment that everybody who comes from Yugoslavia can claim to be an asylum seeker. That is why I was careful to say—and I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not follow me because the Home Secretary was asking him questions at the time—that the Kurd in my hypothetical case had a well-founded fear of persecution. I have no doubt at all,

and it is much to my regret, that, in Serbia and Croatia, some individuals will have a well-founded fear of persecution. Having listened to the Minister for Overseas Development on the radio yesterday, and having studied the Bill and the rules accompanying it, I regret that I cannot see how a single Kurd with a well-founded fear of persecution, or a single Serb or Croation who qualifies under the United Nations convention of 1951, could possibly get into this country. Such people could not get a visa for the purpose and they would be turned back if they came here with forged or false papers. There is no way that we could offer them the sort of assistance that a humane and self-confident country should provide.
Let us look at some of the other rules. The Home Secretary referred to the fact that, last Tuesday, I asked him to justify paragraph 6, which requires an immigration officer to judge an applicant's credibility in the light of his political affiliation. I regard that as absolutely intolerable. Of course, we all agree that, if a man pretends to take up a position that he has not previously occupied, that should disqualify him—as part of the evidence—from being an asylum seeker, but that is not what the paragraph says. The paragraph says that, if he takes part in political activity while in this country, that fact may be held against him.
Although it may not be popular, especially on the Conservative Benches, I believe that if a Kurdish refugee in this country has a genuine claim to asylum, he is entitled to go to the Iraqi embassy and say that he believes that Saddam Hussein is an abomination. The idea that that may be held against him is quite preposterous.
I now realise that the situation is worse than I understood it to be. Paragraph 7 of the rules stipulates that the
actions of anyone acting on behalf of the asylum applicant, whether or not with the applicant's express approval, may be taken into account
when the applicant's acceptability is determined. That means that a Kurd in danger of his life may be sent back to Iraq, not because of anything that he says, does, believes in or has done in the past, but because of what others do or say on his behalf without his approval or knowledge.
The unacceptability of penalising one man for what another does is something that the Home Secretary should easily understand, because the problem is particularly relevant to him. When immigration officers broke their undertakings and returned an asylum seeker to Zaire before the case had been considered in court, the courts did not hold the Home Secretary responsible for the decision, because it was said that the decision was not taken with his express approval. Similarly, the Home Secretary made the same excuse after the Brixton break-out fiasco: he said that he had not done anything and did not know about it. Why should that rule apply to him when the asylum seeker is penalised for something he does not know about?
I give the Home Secretary credit for not understanding the Bill's most important proposals; otherwise I could describe his behaviour to the House only in unparliamentary language. The inadequacy of the appeal procedure, or, to be accurate, the so-called appeal procedure, is vital. According to the Bill, asylum seekers have no right of appeal. They have a right to ask leave to appeal, but that is quite a different matter. In consequence, the Under-Secretary of State's claims to the contrary are simply wrong. The appeal system is not extended; it is attenuated.
The Under-Secretary of State's letter in today's Independent confuses the issue even more. He has sent so many letters to newspapers that it can only be a matter of time before the Home Secretary publishes them as an anthology and claims that he has written a book. The letter which the Under-Secretary of State is notable for not writing is the one I invited him to write last Tuesday contradicting the report in The Times that he had ever said that the Bill would penalise some asylum seekers.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I intervened in that debate. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, I have written several letters to the newspaper because the headline of an article I read was wrong while the body of the copy was not. I have not written the other letter because I was waiting for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to send me a photocopy of the article by Mr. Philip Webster. The right hon. Gentleman said rather pompously and ponderously that if I was correct, Mr. Webster, the excellent parliamentary correspondent of The Times, had it wrong—something he rarely does. When I receive that photocopy, I will certainly pen a letter to The Times.

Mr. Hattersley: The Under-Secretary is right. I got the byline wrong. That is a grievous offence and grievously shall I answer for it. However, as the Under-Secretary claims that The Times grossly misrepresented him, saying that he had admitted that the Bill would disadvantage some asylum seekers, I look forward to his refutation in a letter and to the comments that The Times writes under that letter when it publishes it.

Mr. Lloyd: The body of copy was correct, the headline was wrong. That demonstrates that the right hon. Gentleman only reads the headlines, not the small print.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the body of the article. The point was in the body of the article. However, if I had been accused in a headline or anywhere else of disadvantaging asylum seekers, I would have thought it best and right to contradict that in a letter to the editor.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I want to refer to something that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said before the last altercation between him and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—his strictures on the Home Secretary about what is meant by an appeal. I do not criticise the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who is a scribbler rather than a babbler in the courts. However, does he accept that an appeal takes place when one goes to another tribunal to question the decision of a lower tribunal? If one goes to a special adjudicator to ask it to reconsider a decision, that is an appeal in law. The first stage may be to seek leave to appeal more fully, but that is still part of the appeal process and is understood to be in our courts. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, to whom I am very well disposed after what he said about me last week, noticed that when one of his honourable and I believe equally learned colleagues said that the procedure was similar to that which applies in the courts, I nodded as emphatically as I could. However, the

system that applies in the courts may lead to appeal. Ministers have chosen to represent the proposal in the Bill as automatic, invariable and unconditional appeal. That is the great difference.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as the Home Secretary would not give way to me. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, on that point, the Home Secretary, whether by oversight or deliberation, chose to misrepresent precisely what the Bar Council has said about the matter? The Bar Council has issued a brief to all hon. Members who are interested in these matters explicitly criticising the Government for not making it clear in the statement on 2 July that the proposal was merely a right to seek leave to appeal and not a right of appeal. The Bar Council stated:
We do not understand why this limitation was not drawn to the attention of Parliament when the statement was made on July 2nd.
The Home Secretary has deliberately misrepresented the position of the legal profession.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Home Secretary has quite scandalously—although whether deliberately is not for me to say—misunderstood and misrepresented the views of the Bar Council. However, were I to correct all the factual errors in his speech, I would speak for almost as long as he did. I want now to describe the truth and the facts about appeals, and the House and the country must decide whether the so-called appeal is adequate.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I will not take any more interventions for a while or I will speak for almost as long as the Home Secretary.
Applicants for asylum resident in the United Kingdom—three quarters of all asylum seekers—now possess under the law a real right to appeal. The present right is to be extinguished. It will be replaced by the right to apply for an appeal. When the application is granted—and I have no way of knowing on how many occasions that will occur—the appeal that is awarded will not be worthy of that name.
The Home Secretary has chosen to argue, and will no doubt continue to argue, that the Bill provides appeals where no appeal was previously allowed. However, that is only the case if, like Humpty Dumpty, he believes that words mean whatever he wants them to mean. At present, men and women who apply for asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom have no right to appeal against refusal until they return to their country of origin. The new provision states that every applicant "may"—not "will"—have his case examined a second time. However, the second examination is not a right, and to call it an automatic appeal is a simple perversion of the language.
Clause 1 stipulates that a person who is refused admission may appeal. Schedule 2 states that an appeal goes ahead only with the leave of the special adjudicator. If the adjudicator decides that the appellant does not have an arguable claim, no appeal is allowed. The decision whether to allow the appeal is taken without hearing any additional evidence.
Disqualification may be automatic if, for example, the applicant has travelled through another country. The Home Secretary dealt with that point by asking, "Why


should an applicant who travelled through another country be awarded asylum?" He said that the Security Council resolution and the high commission rules said that an applicant who travelled through another country should not necessarily be awarded asylum. The Home Secretary failed to point out—again, I am sure, through inadvertence rather than a wish to deceive—the last sentence of that advice, which refers to the applicant having travelled through another country which is itself a signatory to the United Nations convention of 1951. That qualification does not appear in the Home Secretary's rules.
If there is no appeal, all that happens is that the original papers are re-read. There is certainly no provision for an oral hearing. The applicant cannot add evidence. The applicant does not even know why his application has been rejected. Leave to appeal is refused on nothing more than a re-reading of the immigration official's evidence. The idea that that is an automatic appeal is clearly nonsense.
I concede that when an appeal to an adjudicator is allowed and then is subsequently refused, appeal to a tribunal is possible, but only on a point of law. There is also the right, which is stipulated in clause 6, to appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal, but it is the Bar Council's view—I hope that the Home Secretary will not contradict it on this occasion—that that is not an extension of the applicant's rights but is an attempt to limit the terms of any future judicial review.
Much has been made of the fast-track approach. "Fast" is certainly the word for the way in which an applicant for asylum must behave if he or she is to contest his or her refusal to enter this country. The applicant will have 48 hours to lodge an application for leave to appeal. If an appeal is allowed, the appellant must be heard within six weeks—six weeks to prepare the case—but no deadline is set for the Home Office's final decision. Those are intolerable pressures to put on a man or a woman who is facing and fighting against return to imprisonment and death. The inadequacy of the appeal system is compounded by the Government's decision to remove the right to legal aid—the green form system—from asylum seekers and require all asylum seekers to obtain advice through the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
I again ask the Home Secretary a question which he should intervene and answer at once. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that it is crucial to the conduct of the debate. Will the Government resist the claim to be made in the High Court by the Commission for Racial Equality that, by removing legal aid from asylum seekers, the Government have acted unlawfully under section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976? I hope that the House and the Home Secretary realise the seriousness of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman's own agency—an agency which he sponsors and funds—is about to take him and the Government to court for breach of section 20 of the Race Relations Act. I have actually seen a copy of counsel's opinion that the CRE obtained—not, I should point out, sent to me by the CRE. That opinion is categorical in saying that the court is likely to agree that the removal of the green form scheme is racially discriminatory and therefore in breach of the law. We should be told at once, before the debate proceeds, whether the Law Officers share that view, whether they think that they are obliged under the law of this country to backtrack on the original proposals, or

whether they will blind it out and face it out in court. I shall gladly give way if the Home Secretary will, as he should, tell the House here and now what is the Government's attitude.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman a week ago that we do not accept that interpretation.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman did not mention it to me a week ago, but I hope that I can now take it from what he says that the Government intend to fight the case in court.

Mr. Baker: We do not yet know whether it is going to court.

Mr. Hattersley: If it goes to court, will the Government fight it?

Mr. Baker: It depends how the matter is to be proceeded with. I have made it clear to the House that we do not accept that interpretation of the case put forward by the Commission for Racial Equality.

Mr. Hattersley: The House will judge the conviction with which the Home Secretary holds on to that position, not least because, on this subject, the Home Secretary changes his tune from day to day. Sometimes he claims that the object of ending the green form scheme is to save public expenditure. On other occasions, he insists that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service would provide superior advice t/ that which would be obtained through independent solicitors. I therefore ask him in passing: how is the applicant for asylum, who has 48 hours to respond to a rejection, and who lives in a town in which there is no UKIAS office—he may be 100, 200, or 300 miles from a UKIAS office—to respond in 48 hours if he he is not entitled to free legal advice from any other source? In a sense, that is the practical application of the Home Secretary's inadequacy.
More important is the principle. The principle is that a man or woman whose life is in danger or who believes his or her life to be in danger is entitled to make a choice about the legal advice that he or she receives. When I made that point on 2 July, after the Home Secretary's statement, he was foolish enough to accuse me of criticising UKIAS. We now know that UKIAS shares my apprehensions exactly.
It calls the Home Secretary's proposals
a denial of natural justice.
It does not want to be the sole provider of legal advice to asylum seekers. Indeed, initially it refused the job point-blank. As a result of that, it is now being threatened by the Government.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having been involved in the UKIAS in either a full-time capacity or as chair until last year, I have the greatest confidence in that organisation? Its advice is excellent, and it is independent of the Government. Although it receives funds, it is virtually in the same position as the citizens advice bureaux, and so on. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the pressure that is now being put on UKIAS were to succeed, it could seriously call into question the credibility of that organisation, and those who are anti-UKIAS could say, "This is not an independent organisation. It not only receives money from the Government, but, as a result of receiving money, it has a monopoly, and therefore people are not in a position to


take legal aid"? The credibility of UKIAS is being seriously questioned as a result of what the Home Secretary has done.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is right in every particular. On 2 July, when the Home Secretary said that I was attacking UKIAS, my hon. Friend was the first one to say that that was not our position. We wanted to protect UKIAS. He is quite right to say that many asylum applicants will wrongly but nevertheless strongly hold the view that an agency funded by the Government is not an agency to which they can speak frankly. UKIAS has sent me examples of applicants who have said, "We would rather have an independent solicitor because we know what some Governments do in other countries and we are not sure whether this Government is any more independent."

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my right hon. Friend share my great concern at the way in which Conservative Benches are almost totally denuded? Hon. Members would normally expect courtesy to be extended to Front-Bench Members so that they can hear the arguments for and against.
We will get far more accuracy from my right hon. Friend than we will get from the Home Secretary. Therefore, I refer my right hon. Friend to the statement that was made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on radio the other day about the right of appeal. If refusal is delivered at the point of entry, the potential refugee, by saying, "I intend to appeal," has entered an appeal. I am not sure whether the verbal statement will qualify as signifying intention to appeal.

Mr. Hattersley: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not sure, either. However, I must also tell him that I do not mind the absence of Conservative Members. They came in intending to bray at the Labour party, complaining, in the Home Secretary's words, that we wanted an open-door policy. As they have now discovered that I propose to take the House through the Bill stage by stage, and as the intellectual effort is too much for them, they have all left the Chamber.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: It appears that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary wishes to intervene. I could advise him simply to write me a letter, but instead I shall gladly take his intervention and then proceed to my conclusion so that other hon. Members may participate.

Mr. Lloyd: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to write him a letter, but I am nevertheless grateful to him for giving way yet again. I was interested in what he was saying about UKIAS and the monopoly and shall certainly comment on that in my reply. I should be grateful, however, if the right hon. Gentleman would continue his argument. He does not want UKIAS to have a monopoly on advice, but at present it has a monopoly on representation, which is crucial to the putting of any asylum seeker's case. Indeed, UKIAS had a monopoly under the last Labour Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman now proposing to end that and if not, why not?

Mr. Hattersley: The case of a man or woman who believes and fears that he or she might be returned to death, torture or imprisonment and who wants to feel that he or she is operating independently of any Government agency is very different from other cases.
As the Minister has referred to advice and audience, I should like to return to the point that I was making before I took several interventions. Having said that it does not want the monopoly in this area, UKIAS is being threatened by the Government. In reply to UKIAS's refusal to dance to the Government's tune, the Minister wrote to that organisation, stating:
this must throw a question mark over the funding that you already receive from such work and we would want to consider whether the grant should be more directly restricted simply to providing representation before the appellate authorities.
In short, unless UKIAS does the Government's bidding, it will be emasculated. That would be a denial of all that it stands for and would destroy all its work on behalf of those whom it is supposed to serve.
I shall now deal with the rest of the legislation as quickly as the Bill itself allows. Clause 3 deals in one particular with the treatment of asylum seekers who have obtained admission to this country—it relates to their right to housing. We believe that once an asylum seeker is allowed to enter the country, he or she should be treated like any other resident—no better, no worse. Housing authorities should treat every applicant according to need. Several of the London boroughs in which asylum seekers have settled have been put under special pressure. That problem should be solved by the Government's providing additional housing resources. The hard fact is that in most boroughs no municipal houses are being built. The Government do not believe in municipal housing, even if the alternative is a shop doorway. The housing investment programme has been largely abandoned. The problem of the pressure on the London boroughs is of the Government's making, not the asylum seekers'.
Clause 3 is likely to make things worse at least in terms of public expenditure. Local authorities would not be required to provide anything more than temporary accommodation—in other words, bed and breakfast accommodation. That would allow the Government to proclaim that they are protecting the housing stock from the 7 million Russians whom the Home Secretary says are waiting to come to the United Kingdom. In fact, the measure would squander poll tax payers' money. In London, the cost of permanent council accommodation in a family house is £8,500 per year, whereas the cost of bed and breakfast is £14,500. Clause 3 is expensive as well as unacceptable.

Ms. Short: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall take just one more intervention, but then I must get on.

Ms. Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the delays in the Home Office system that lead to the cost of housing and social security? Because of those delays, genuine refugees who want to work and to maintain themselves have to wait for years, living only on social security benefits, and are thus unable to provide their own housing? Speeding up that system would solve most of the problems.

Mr. Hattersley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, which is why I believe that an end date should be put on the Government's period of decision-making.
Clause 7 claims to amend, but actually extends, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 by requiring transit passengers to possess an appropriate visa. If the passengers do not possess that visa, the airline will be punished. It can be fined for carrying anyone without the proper documentation. The whole Act is a farce—and an unjust one at that. We believe that it should be amended to concentrate action on those agents who exploit asylum seekers rather than penalising airlines which often carry passengers in good faith without realising that they are technically ineligible to enter the United Kingdom.
Last week British Airways gave me some examples of how the Act works in practice. Regular business travellers whose passports have expired on the day before their journey are invariably allowed into the United Kingdom despite the discovery that their passports are technically invalid. Although such a passenger may be allowed through immigration, British Airways will be fined £1,000 or £2,000 for carrying him. That is absurd.
The Minister for Overseas Development telephoned British Airways a few weeks ago to ask for its assistance in flying refugees into the United Kingdom. She was told—jocularly, I am assured—that that was all very well, but that as none of them would have any documents, it would cost BA £1,000—the figure will soon be £2,000—to provide each of them with that humanitarian service. The Minister expressed her surprise and said that the Government would waive the fine.
The worst example comes from the House of Lords. Among other things, it demonstrates that Lord Waddington's speed of thought has remained unchanged since moving from this place to the other. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act was described by Lord King, who first reminded their Lordships that he was a close friend of the Government, as draconian, unprincipled and pernicious. He then told the story of a woman who was travelling with her recently born baby. The baby's name was on the mother's passport, but riot on her visa. British Airways was fined £1,000 for allowing the mother to take her infant child with her. It is worth noting Lord Waddington's judgment on that case, once he had eventually realised that the baby had not actually been born on the aeroplane. There was much interested shouting between Lord Waddington and Lord King about the baby being delivered not on the aeroplane, but by the aeroplane. When the Leader of the other House finally accepted and understood that point, he said:
if the baby was delivered before the lady went through embarkation control … there was no valid documentation for two passengers".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1991; Vol. 531, c. 1473.]
The noble Lord concluded that the fine was therefore essential and right. It is difficult to imagine a better example of a hard head and a bonehead.
Finally, there is one part of the Bill about which I admit regrettable ambivalence. I refer to clause 2, which requires asylum seekers to be fingerprinted. Because I believe that bogus asylum seekers should be excluded from this country, I was initially sympathetic to any practical step that would achieve that end by avoiding and preventing multiple applications. However, there is no doubt about the damage that would be caused by fingerprinting. Only two classes of person would be obliged to have their

fingerprints taken—persons helping the police with their inquiries and asylum seekers. On balance, as I do not believe that an asylum seeker should be treated as a criminal, I am against the proposal. I am hardened in that opinion by the Government's general behaviour. Throughout the asylum debate, they have painted the worst and most prejudicial picture of asylum seekers and of the reasons that motivate most applications——

Mr. Kenneth Baker: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary is shaking his head. Has he forgotten, within the past hour and a half, the belly laughs that he got from his own Back Benchers with his stories of social security fraud? Has he forgotten, in just an hour and a half, the pleasure that he gave to his own backwoodsmen by telling stories about multiple applications? We thought that he had probably found just eight such examples out of a total of 1,000. The fact that he demonstrated his interest in those eight cases, emphasised them and talked so wildly about them, shows that his concern is not with the genuine asylum seeker, but with diminishing the respect that this country should hold for people who are in desperate trouble and whom, in better and more self-confident days, hon. Members of all parties would have been in favour of helping.
Although while making those allegations and telling their bar room stories the Government have added that they propose to respect their obligations under United Nations conventions, they have always followed that with attempts to make the nation's flesh creep with the thought of the foreign hordes from whom an heroic Home Secretary is now protecting us.
If the Home Secretary meant what he said about increasing the status of asylum seekers and respect for them, why in the debate on the subject at the Tory party conference did he talk about 7 million Russians waiting to move west, when he knew that last year 117 Russians applied to enter this country and less than half of them were allowed in?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I answered that in my speech. If I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, I did not invent that figure. It was the official estimate from the Soviet spokesman at the international conference at Vienna this year. At the Berlin conference only 10 days ago my German counterpart, the Minister of the Interior, was alarmed at the number of eastern Europeans and Russians who intend to move into Germany.
The extraordinary thing about the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the past few minutes is that once again he seeks to make out that this is not a very important problem and that we can push it away. Earlier in his speech he weakened every attempt to strengthen our defences such as the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and fingerprinting. He does not want any of that. He represents a weak policy. We represent a strong policy.

Mr. Hattersley: Unfortunately, there are not enough Tory Members to cheer that extract from the future Tory manifesto. However, I have no doubt that the Home Secretary reveals his secret self. He reveals what all this is about. It is the attempt to claim that he is strong and others are weak. No one who has listened to this debate so far, let alone anyone who listens to it between now and


10 o'clock, will believe that assertion for a moment. They will know that the Home Secretary sees the matter essentially in narrow party terms.
I was about to say that, looking back at his record, I could not understand why the Home Secretary wanted to relive his time as Conservative party chairman, because that was hardly his finest hour. However, when I think of him at the Departments of the Environment and of Education and Science, I realise that it probably was his finest hour.
The point about the 7 million Russians is simply this. I dare say that there are 7 million Russians waiting to move west. But the Home Secretary's fraudulent attempt to imply that they were all destined for Heathrow does him no credit and should cause him shame.
Perhaps the Home Secretary will get up to respond on the second point that he made to the Conservative party conference. He said that the alternative to his policy was the open door. Does he believe that? Does he believe that we advocate an open door or does he share the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that there is unanimity across the House that we should not allow the bogus asylum seeker into this country?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has shown clearly during the past few minutes that his proposals are much weaker than the Bill. Our proposals are also those made by the socialist Government in France, the Christian Democrat Government in Germany and virtually every other country in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman turns his back on all that because he is living in a fool's paradise and believes that the problem will not go away. It will not go away and the right hon. Gentleman abdicates responsibility by not facing up to it.

Mr. Hattersley: I understand exactly what the Home Secretary meant even though he got his "nots" in the wrong place. I ask him again, not to make a point on which I did not ask for his response, but to answer a simple question: does he believe that others advocate an open door?

Mr. Baker: Under the policies that the right hon. Gentleman advocates it would be much easier for people to come here. In our Bill we ensure that there is a proper distinction between genuine and bogus applicants. That is what we stand by. The right hon. Gentleman will come to regret many of the things that he has said in the past half hour.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman does not have the courage to repeat in the House what he said at the Conservative party conference. I do. I believe that the Government are motivated by the basest possible considerations. Everything that the Home Secretary has said about the Bill today and in the debate last Tuesday confirms my judgment.
I am not surprised that radical and enlightened opinion in Britain, from Bernard Levin in The Times to the leader in The Mail on Sunday, regards the Bill as shameful. It is made all the more shameful by the Home Secretary's behaviour, not least the way in which he defended the representations of the Bill made on the front pages of tabloid newspapers. He regarded those representations as respectable, but I can describe them in the language which

Parliament prevents me from using about the Home Secretary. What they said was a lie. It was intended to be prejudicial not simply to my party—which would be understandable—but to the millions of black and Asian Britons who live in this country. That is what we find unforgivable and that is why when we come to power, as we shall in six months, we shall introduce a decent system of appeals and objective criteria and a carriers' liability Act which does not penalise the honest airline doing its best but takes action against the men and women who exploit those who wish to come here. Until those changes are made, the Bill will be unworthy of Parliament. It will be just about worthy of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Roger Gale: I have listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for the best part of an hour. I hope that I may be rather more brief, out of courtesy to my many Conservative colleagues who wish to comment. In that hour, I heard bigotry and claptrap but very little which suggests that the right hon. Gentleman is remotely interested in dealing with the real problems of genuine asylum seekers.
There are those on this side of the House, and I am one of them, who are proud to count themselves among the number of those who have fought hard for asylum seekers when we believed their cases to be genuine and for human rights for people living in the Baltic states, the Kurds and people in Soviet prison camps. We do not need any lessons from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
In an hour, I heard the right hon. Gentleman repeat the scorn that he poured on the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in last week's Queen's Speech debate. The Act requires airline staff to ensure that embarking passengers are properly documented. Does he accept that the measure can lead to the identification of forged documents?
At the beginning of his speech, I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was concerned to ensure that bogus asylum seekers did not gain asylum. But in one hour of his speech, I did not hear him suggest one measure by means of which he or his party would get to grips with that very real problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any proposals of his own for dealing with the potential tide of immigrants into western Europe? Does he deny that that tide exists? He said that he intended to find measures to control it, but in one hour he did not describe one such measure. He sought systematically to undermine a piece of legislation that gets to grips with a real human problem.
In 1988, there were some 5,000 applicants for asylum in Britain. In 1989, there were 15,000. In 1990, there were 30,000. The projection to the end of this year is 50,000. Some 55,000 people will be waiting for cases to be processed. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that the staff to deal with those cases will be increased. I believe that it is in the interests of genuine asylum seekers that their cases should be processed not in two years but in less than two months if humanly possible. I believe that it is humanly possible, and that the measure before the House will go some way to achieving that.

Mr. Bernie Grant: The hon. Gentleman has given us some figures. He talks about 50,000. How many of those asylum seekers are new cases and people who would enter Britain? My understanding is that the list


of 50,000 contains people who are already here and have renewed their asylum claim because they are required to do so every four years, people who have been granted exceptional leave to remain and who have to renew their case every year, and people such as the Chinese students who were genuinely here as students but could not return to their country after Tiananmen square. Do the numbers that the quotes include those people?

Mr. Gale: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was seeking to intervene or to make a speech, but I am sure that he may have the opportunity to do so if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the interim, the figures that I quoted are for the number of people waiting for their cases to be processed.
The increase in the establishment announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a sign of the Government's determination to get to grips with that backlog and to ensure that the cases of genuine asylum seekers are processed so that they are able to put uncertainty behind them, settle in this country and make a new life for themselves as quickly as possible. I should have thought that the Opposition would find that desirable but they have not even had the grace to acknowledge it tonight.
The Bill will make this country less attractive for bogus asylum seekers. It is an interesting fact that, in spite of the increase in the numbers of people claiming asylum since 1988, the number of people admitted as genuine cases of asylum has remained more or less constant year on year. That ought to tell Opposition Members something about the number of bogus cases.
All hon. Members have a duty to speak for their constituents. When anyone stands up and says, "Most people think," it is always dangerous. When we do so, we generally mean, "The chap I met in the lounge bar of the Dog and Ferret and I both agree that". It is not usually based on any sensible market research. However, I shall go out on a limb and say that most people in this country believe that there must be some form of immigration control and some control over those seeking asylum, genuine or otherwise.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he believed that the Opposition's policies would lead to an open door. Let me answer that question. Yes, I believe that that is what Opposition policies would mean. I am not ashamed to say so, and neither is my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook appears to be an expert on my right hon. Friend's party conference speech, and he knows the views of Conservative Members very well.
Most decent people in this country believe two things: first, that this country is too small to take all comers from anywhere, at all times, incessantly, because they believe that to do so would have profound social effects on housing, employment and other matters affecting people of all races who are resident here; secondly, that the genuine asylum seeker should and shall have a proper place in this country, as he or she has always done, that their cases should be properly and swiftly considered, and that they should be properly and swiftly admitted. That is what the Bill will achieve, and I look forward to serving on the Standing Committee and supporting it.

Mr. Max Madden: There is widespread agreement that the procedures used for deciding political asylum in the United Kingdom need reform. There is widespread agreement that the most important reform is to speed up the time taken to decide applications for political asylum. We all agree that it is wrong that those who flee persecution, torture and death should be required to wait months or years for a decision to be taken.
However, there is widespread agreement that the Bill is not the best way to expedite political asylum applications in a way compatible with natural justice. Indeed, there is widespread agreement that, if the Government wanted to achieve that desirable objective, it would not require legislation, as they could expedite applications for political asylum while properly defending an applicant's rights by taking administrative action. That would mean devoting more resources, in terms of staff and money, to ensure that the applications are dealt with expeditiously, fairly and in accordance with natural justice. Instead, the Government have chosen new laws, however defective, difficult and offensive to enforce, and have thereby fed the suspicion that the Government's motive lies elsewhere.
The Bill has few friends. We have been told that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is the most prolific letter writer in support of the Bill. The deserted Conservative Benches show the amount of support for the Bill within the Conservative party. The fact that the Bill has few friends is beyond dispute. Ranged against the Bill is a remarkable coalition of critics, ranging from community groups to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, by way of the chairman of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society.

Mr. Janman: rose——

Mr. Madden: I wish to make a short speech, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his usual racist remarks later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that was perhaps a slip of the tongue which he ought not to have made. I would be grateful if he would withdraw the remark.

Mr. Madden: It was a most deliberate remark, based on my experience of remarks that are frequently made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we regard each other as hon. Members here and that was an imputation that a Member was less than honourable. I think that he will recognise that he ought to withdraw it.

Mr. Madden: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I concur with your wishes and I withdraw that remark, but I shall leave the general public to reflect upon its accuracy.
There is considerable anxiety about the Government's proposal to withdraw the legal aid green form scheme. By using bribery and blackmail, the Government have sought to persuade the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to collude in offering sole advice and representation to those seeking political asylum.
I found it astounding that, in his awful opening speech, the Home Secretary sought no opportunity to refer to those matters in any way. The words "green form legal aid scheme" and "UKIAS" did not fall from his lips once during that long speech. Could it be because he and his colleagues in the Home Office are enormously embarrassed about this proposal?
The Commission for Racial Equality meets later this month to consider whether to instigate judicial review proceedings against the relevant Ministers on the ground that the withdrawal of the legal aid green form scheme from cases involving refugees, asylum seekers and other immigration matters constitutes unlawful discrimination contrary to section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) the Home Secretary said that the Government did not support the view of the CRE, based on a legal opinion that I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, have read.
On 2 October, the Home Secretary wrote to Mr. Michael Day, the chairman of the CRE. The last paragraph reads:
You also suggest in your letter that the Government's proposal to withdraw Green Form legal aid in immigration cases might contravene the Race Relations Act 1976. This is a matter for the Lord Chancellor and he will be replying separately to your letter to him.
I find it strange, as I said on a point of order at the beginning of the debate, that no Law Officer is present to give advice to the House on whether the proposal breaches the 1976 Act. Like the CRE, I suspect that it does and that we are likely to be faced with judicial review applications being made by the CRE within a few days which are likely to be upheld in the courts. The House will then find itself in a ludicrous position—the Bill will be in a Standing Committee—as it is being asked to consider this wholly unnecessary legislation when the courts may find at a later stage that it is unlawful. Is it any wonder that the Home Secretary declined to say a word about that matter in his opening speech? If nothing else, that constitutes grave discourtesy to the House.
Virtually every clause in the Bill has attracted severe criticism. Clause 2 is most offensive as it requires those seeking political asylum, who are entirely innocent of any crime, to be fingerprinted, thereby criminalising the act of seeking political asylum. Many of us fear that fingerprinting is the thin end of the wedge that will lead to identity cards.
Even Conservative local authority representatives have criticised clause 3 and its recommendations on housing provisions. Clause 5 has rightly attracted the most considerable alarm. Anybody who, in the view of an adjudicator, has a clearly unfounded case may have his appeal dismissed without evan an oral hearing and without the right to legal representation. I am sure that that is an abuse of natural justice, and it is of concern to many hon. Members on both sides. This so-called fast-track procedure could well be a death warrant for an applicant who is not believed and who could be returned in as little as 48 hours to the country from which he fled.
A little earlier the Home Secretary caused some amusement to some hon. Members with his anecdotes about domestic difficulties in some Cypriot households. I wonder how many people will laugh at this factual account

of the problems that a Kurd experienced when seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom. He fled persecution in Turkey. He had lost an arm as a result of torture in a Turkish gaol. On arrival, he was imprisoned in Pentonville and the Home Office said that it would refuse his asylum application and return him to Turkey. His lawyers arranged medical examinations to support his torture claims. They got him released from prison and proved conclusively that he was a refugee.
Under these provisions that man could have been returned to Turkey and an uncertain fate. Before hon. Members rubber-stamp this legislation, I appeal to them to think not of the anecdotes from saloon bars in Surrey, but of factual accounts from those who over the years have sought to help people with a genuine cause for seeking political asylum here.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Madden: I will not give way, for the same reason that I gave the hon. Member for Thurrock. I intend to conclude my remarks in a moment.
The Bill is rooted in bigotry and racial prejudice. Its inevitable repercussions will be to increase racial tension, thereby damaging race relations. It denies natural justice to the most vulnerable. It may well breach race relations legislation passed by this House in 1976. This is a bad Bill and, by common consent, an unnecessary one.
I conclude with the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster who in The Times today wrote:
In signing the 1951 convention on the status of refugees, the country accepted the moral responsibility which is also a Christian duty, of welcoming the true asylum seeker who knocks on our door. There is little virtue in proclaiming a willingness to open the door to genuine asylum seekers if the path to it is effectively blocked by provisions which obstruct rather than facilitate access to fair adjudication on appeal.
We hope it is not too late for these points to be carefully considered and the provisions amended so that they do not exclude the genuine refugee.
Those wise and sensible words reflect the views of the vast majority of British citizens. I hope that the Government quickly respond to them.

Mr. David Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his robust opening speech. The Government have a fine record on providing a safe haven for persecuted refugees and on defending the rights of the oppressed abroad, as our actions in the Gulf showed. Conservatives do not need to take lectures from the Labour party, least of all the shadow Home Secretary, whose speech today was that of a racist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman at this end of the Chamber as he is so far away, but did he refer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as having uttered racist remarks? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] In that case, he should reflect again and help the House by withdrawing that comment.

Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman uttered pompous remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman attributed to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook racist views. If so, he must withdraw that comment.

Mr. Evans: I withdraw.
This country has unfortunately become a victim of its own success. Our democratic tradition and the economic opportunities offered under this Government are well known throughout the world. Just as it attracts those with a legitimate fear of oppression who hope to build a new life, it also, unfortunately, draws in the unscrupulous, bogus applicant.
The number of people claiming asylum in the United Kingdom has increased dramatically from 5,000 in 1988 to nearly 50,000 this year. How many will there be in two, three, four or five years' time? One hundred thousand? Five hundred thousand? We are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and our asylum policy should reflect that. The Bill will.
The problem is made worse by the disturbing reduction in the percentage of applicants who are recognised as refugees under the conditions laid down in the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. From 1979 to 1983, on average 60 per cent. of applicants complied with the convention's benchmark. Last year, the figure went down to 25 per cent.
It is not the legitimate applicant that we need worry about: it is those who come here on visits and holidays, students and those with no intention of leaving. These men and women are not persecuted minorities, but freeloaders eager to taste the good life. They are seeking to circumvent immigration rules and procedures passed and approved by this House. That puts a huge strain on the resources of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. As a result, only 4,000 decisions were made in 1990, compared with more than 7,000 in the previous year. That discrepancy is because of the problems of handling increasing numbers of bogus applications. The overall backlog is now running at 60,000 cases. That hurts the genuine applicant whose proper assimilation into this country is delayed.
It is worth remembering that, despite the Opposition's scandalous smears, the Government have made it perfectly clear that, as a signatory to the United Nations convention, they will not return refugees to countries where they face persecution. It was deeply offensive for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to claim at his party conference that the Bill represented a squalid appeal to racism.
While on the subject of the Opposition, I must say that we would all relish the opportunity to scrutinise their policies, but unfortunately they offer not a shred of policy. Their solution is to stick their head in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong. It is laughable that a so-called European party is ignoring an issue that is afflicting and affecting the rest of the continent.
Since 1985, the number of applicants for asylum in Europe has doubled every three years. More than 500,000 are expected in 1991. Who knows what the figures will be in 1992, 1993 and 1994. We all know that millions of Europeans—we have heard that there are 7 million from the Soviet Union alone—are looking to taste the good life in the west. Only Germany and Italy have received appreciably more applications than the United Kingdom. The Labour party would not only leave us high and dry

but would passively agree to the most extreme EEC proposal that would allow our policy to be determined by Eurocrats in Brussels.
I find the Labour party's approach surprising, for this is a party that knows all about political refugees. After all, it has supplied enough of them to other political parties. Alas, no one can teach the Labour party anything about political persecution, as there are at least two Opposition Members who know all about being hounded out for their beliefs.
The source of the Opposition's dithering is the shadow Home Secretary—the Member of Parliament who took the spark out of Sparkbrook. The right hon. Gentleman is reputed to have a good mind, but the trouble is that he just cannot make it up. The right hon. Gentleman is as indecisive on this issue as on every other that crosses his desk. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman had learnt by now that all that blustering, laughing and chivvying is no substitute for statesmanship. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman has been out of office for so long that he has forgotten how to face up to a real problem. The right hon. Gentleman may carp and whinge, but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) hit the nail on the head when he asked whether the Opposition would have an amnesty. Of course they would—they would let them all in.
I am reluctant to give the Labour party too much advice, because its non-policy is so hopelessly out of step with the needs of our nation that it is a sure vote loser. In a recent poll, 78 per cent. of those questioned backed the Government's stance on this issue. That should surprise no one but the Labour party. The inevitable conclusion is that the Labour party would just let anyone in, genuine or not, and to hell with the consequences.
The Government are right to provide extra resources to process the backlog of applications. The Opposition have been free with their spending commitments, subject to Beckett's law, but they have set their face against any such sensible, necessary measure. It would appear that, unless a grand scheme of reform costs billions of pounds, the Opposition are not interested. The Opposition are, however, quite happy to see taxpayers' money squandered on people who have no legitimate right to be in this country.
Of asylum applications made, 75 per cent. come from people already in the United Kingdom. Two thirds of those applicants arrive with forged or mutilated documents, or no documents at all. Their aim is to confuse and complicate the processing of their cases. In other words, they want to get into Britain because we give them money for doing nothing. That is what they come here for. They come in, go up to the social security and collect the money—no problem.
I heard about one applicant who claimed that her father had been killed because of his membership of a political group. Inquiries made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office revealed that the man was not only alive and well, but was also paying regular visits to offices openly run by the political organisation to which he belonged.
A waitress on a Soviet cruise liner sought asylum while the ship was in port. She had experienced no persecution in the Soviet Union, but just did not like living there She had had shore leave in France, Italy and Germany, but she said that she had not sought asylum in those countries because she was unable to speak any of the languages. It transpired that she could not speak English, either.
Faced with multiple comparable cases, it is only right that the Government should seek to speed up the scrutiny procedures. The privileges accorded to those seeking refugee status represent a significant burden on the state, and it is therefore essential that bogus applicants are quickly weeded out and sent packing.
I am particularly worried about the thousands of people who come to Britain under false pretences, never to return to their country of origin. They and their families draw social security benefits to which they have made no contribution through the tax system. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that such people should receive no benefits, such as housing benefit or any other free handout, until they have paid tax for five years. That might make them think twice about coming here. [Interruption.] The Opposition may laugh, but is it fear of persecution or the free handout that generates such people's interest in this country?
There is increasing evidence that multiple applications are made for benefits and that false identities are assumed for the purpose of making fraudulent social security claims. We are all aware that such fraudulent claims are estimated to cost £100 million. Perhaps the true figure is £500 million or £1,000 million—no one knows. The clause relating to fingerprinting should help to combat that problem. The Opposition always claim that we do not spend enough money on social welfare, but they want to block legislation that will stop abuse and put money in the hands of those who truly deserve it.
I particularly welcome the specific provisions that will limit the duty of local authorities to find permanent accommodation for asylum applicants while their claims are considered. Many of my constituents believe that the priority accorded to such people constitutes little more than queue-jumping. It is only right that the new rules will require applicants to pass stiffer tests before qualifying for help with housing. However, the homeless legislation will still provide a safety net for those asylum seekers in genuine need.
Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps are being taken to provide secure accommodation for applicants whose claims are being considered? At present, far too many use fake addresses and are never heard of again. Surely genuine refugees would not object to the provision of such secure accommodation. I recognise that there will be a pressure on beds, so will the Home Secretary consider commissioning army camps for this purpose? There are many suitable sites close to ports and airports.
I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will dispel this country's image as a soft touch for reprobates from the international community. However, I would bet the last pound in my pocket that, in the event of a Labour Government, the number of applications for asylum would plummet. Who would want to live in a country run by the Labour party, which would be plagued by high taxation and rocketing inflation, and where civil liberties would be protected by a Home Secretary who makes announcements between courses at the best London restaurants?
If the Asylum Bill is found wanting for not being tough enough, will the Home Secretary consider instituting a moratorium that would not let anyone into this country for two years? That would give us a breathing space to deal

with the backlog of inquiries and it would give us the opportunity to assess bogus applications. Why should this country be the world's permanent dumping ground for asylum seekers? Charity belongs at home.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In so far as it is true that there are those who abuse the right to claim asylum, the case put by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has been answered effectively by Christian Aid, which has stated:
Immuring ourselves behind a punitive system of controls will not make the problem go away".
If the hon. Gentleman is interested in effectiveness, he would do well to scrutinise the Bill with a little more care than his speech revealed.
I believe that the proposed Government measures to stem the flow of applications for asylum in Britain will do nothing to remove the international root of the increase in the number of people seeking refuge here. At best, their planned measures would displace the problem from our own shores, violating our international obligations in the process. At worst, those measures will inflict hardship and danger upon very many innocent people seeking from us the protection of their fundamental rights.
The rules proposed for the consideration of asylum applications are a denial of the due process of law. They will seriously undermine any claim that this country is governed by the rule of law when dealing with such matters.
The problem of sifting unjustified claims from justified ones has grown to its present scale in Britain and other European countries because Governments in those countries have ducked their responsibilities to take effective international measures to reinforce the protection of human rights and deal with civil conflicts that create refugee populations. Our Government have compounded the difficulty by not providing adequate manpower resources properly and fairly to screen the applications within a reasonable time limit.
The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield who railed at the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should recognise that his party has been in government for more than 12 years and the problem has become worse only in the past two years. He should show a sense of perspective because the record of previous Governments in those matters was somewhat better.
The manner in which these draconian measures are being implemented and the lack of proper parliamentary debate of the proposed changes in the immigration rules are grotesquely undemocratic and they are a further stain on the country's dwindling reputation as a protector of human rights. How little the Home Secretary is interested in representations on the Bill. It is demonstrated by his absence from the Chamber during the debate. It is extraordinary, when he has had representations from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the British Refugee Council, the Bar Council, the Law Society and all humanitarian groups, and when letters have appeared in The Times from the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Home Secretary is not interested in the opinions being voiced in the Chamber. They are the democratic expressions of the views of people in this country. The Home Secretary


makes his partisan speech and stalks out. It is an insult to the procedure and shows how scant is his regard for democracy.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is well known for being willing to take part in the debate.

Mr. Janman: Before the hon. Gentleman goes through the rainbow coalition of the great and the good referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), does he accept that a much bigger, wider coalition supports the Bill? It is called the British people.

Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary's obligation is to listen to what the representatives of the people to whom he referred think. If he considers that he has anything more important to do this afternoon, that raises legitimate questions about his commitment to undertake to listen to representations.
The Prime Minister spoke in Harare of the problems that have given rise to the difficulties facing this country. He spoke with considerable sense and insight and said:
Recent history shows us that striving for individual rights leads to discontent, economic failure and ultimately collapse.
His prescription was:
The bedrock of what we must do must be the general application of democracy and human rights. It is on that basis that we can build good government and economic prosperity.
The Prime Minister's speech, delivered be haut en bas to other Commonwealth members, is perhaps the first attempt that the Government have made in all their years in office to draw attention to the consequences of denying human rights, not only in the countries concerned but for us in this country.
People sometimes delude themselves into thinking that this country has a good reputation for welcoming those who flee oppression. Unfortunately, that is a myth, because we have no such reputation. There is no belief now, nor has there been for many years—as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield suggested—that this country is a soft touch. We were a disgrace to the international community in the 1930s because we kept out refugees from the Nazi regime. Many people, through sheer fear, sought recourse to devices to protect themselves. The daughter of the great novelist, Thomas Mann, married—an unlikely marriage—the poet W.H. Auden to acquire a British passport because she knew that she would never be given one, despite the fact that she was a satirist who lost no opportunity to denounce the Nazi regime in her country and elsewhere. Britain has a bad reputation for looking after the interests of the oppressed.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman goes a long way back to the 1930s. There are sad and tragic stories, and in retrospect all countries should have behaved differently. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not exaggerate and mislead the House about this country's role then. In the 1930s, we gave refuge to more Jews than any other country except for the United States, so although our record may not be perfect, it well stands comparison with other countries. The hon. Gentleman was denying that it did.

Mr. Maclennan: I made no such comparison. I said that Britain has a bad reputation and I adhere to that view. I am more concerned about the future than the past——

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman raised the subject.

Mr. Maclennan: Those who suggest sentimentally that there was a golden era when we looked at refugees' interests more sympathetically than we do today are simply distorting history. I remind the Minister, a lawyer who was substantially responsible for the provisions that we are debating today, what the gospel of St. Luke says about lawyers:
Woe unto you also ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
That was a statement by our Lord Jesus Christ in chapter 11, verse 46, of the gospel of St. Luke.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I have no intention of giving way again.
The Government have been neglectful, in the international forums in which they participate, of the growing problem of refugees. They have been trying to prevent the European Community collectively from considering the issue—it is one of the subjects being debated in Maastricht—and they have thought fit only to lecture other countries at the Commonwealth conference.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of people leaving countries because of oppression. In the first six months of the year, some 26,140 asylum seekers arrived in Britain. They did not arrive from the countries to which the Home Secretary drew attention in his infamous speech to his party conference. They were not streaming in from eastern Europe or the Soviet Union as he implied. Rather, 60·5 per cent. came from Africa, 24·5 per cent. from Asia, 11·5 per cent. from the middle east, and only 2·5 per cent. from Europe.
Most refugees come from oppressed communities which, when they are in this country, are seen as part of the ethnic community. If those who are anxious about the position of immigrants and ethnic minorities in this country are worried, it flows from that very fact. The Bill is not colour blind in its consequences, as the Home Secretary suggested: its prime impact will be on people who are not of the same ethnic background as the majority of those living in this country. That is why the Government have chosen to whip up the sort of emotions that have characterised the response to the Home Secretary's disgraceful speech, in which he took a few undoubtedly bad examples of abuse and tried to suggest that a majority of the 26,000 people applying for asylum could be ridiculed and characterised as bogus asylum seekers. There is no evidence of that, and the Home Secretary's anecdotal speech was contemptible.
Many people with much knowledge of handling asylum cases have expressed concern about the Bill. The overwhelming worry expressed by lawyers has been that the right of independent legal representation is to be withdrawn. The Government boast about making it more difficult for asylum seekers to come into this country—the Home Secretary used the word "tough" to describe the package of measures—and it is thus more necessary to provide independent legal representation. Independent expert solicitors should be available as of right to handle claims when asylum seekers arrive on these shores. The


Government's threat to withdraw funding from the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service is a regrettable piece of blackmail of which the Minister should be ashamed. If there is to be a streamlined procedure to deal with manifestly ill-founded applications, the need for legal aid becomes greater than ever.
The second major worry expressed by the legal profession is that penalising asylum seekers who arrive without passports is not only conspicuously unfair but a direct violation of our international obligations under article 31 of the United Nations convention on refugees of 1951. Such a breach is serious.
The Bill contains other offensive provisions which amount to a denial of justice. I can hope to touch on only a few of them on Second Reading. One such is the provision that anyone acting on behalf of an asylum applicant, whether or not acting with the applicant's express approval, may also be considered when judging whether asylum should be granted. A claim for asylum status may thus be defeated by something that was done by someone wholly unauthorised by—even unknown to—the asylum seeker. That is a gross violation of the rule of law.
Another serious defect in the measure is the time allowed for appeal. The three-day proposal is clearly not enough time to allow evidence to be procured or for the procedures to be understood by the applicant.

Mr. Lawrence: Three days have been allowed merely to lodge an appeal, which does not actually require even five minutes, so that the applicant can seek advice from UKIAS or some other independent adviser.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Member will know that the form in which the appeal is lodged is critical to the chances of its success. The measure states that full disclosure of all the relevant facts must be made, but a person wishing to enter this country may have no knowledge of our procedures and may even have language difficulties. Such a person cannot be expected to know all that is required to establish a claim within the time proposed. The time limit is manifestly unfair. There is no guarantee that the claimant will be heard. The only evidence that has to be put before the special adjudicator is that provided by the Secretary of State. That is inherently unfair.
The Bill contains many other offensive procedures, such as the proposal to curtail the leave to remain of asylum seekers who fail to establish their rights to asylum. The Bar Council has drawn attention to that proposal as being
disingenuous and likely to push asylum seekers into committing the criminal offence of overstaying before applying for asylum.
The measures proposed for fingerprinting are offensive and disproportionate to the problem. Asylum seekers will be the only people other than suspected criminals required to give fingerprints in this country. There is no adequate guarantee that the information will not be passed to others or that it will be properly covered by data protection rules.
Clause 3 describes arrangements about the right of asylum seekers to benefit from legislation relating to homeless persons. No one has welcomed the proposal to restrict local authorities' responsibility in this matter. Local authority associations have made the strongest representations against the proposal, on the ground that it will be damaging to the interests not only of asylum

seekers living within their district of responsibility, but of taxpayers. The cost of temporary accommodation can be considerably greater than the cost of housing people in the manner prescribed in law. The provisions on detention are unacceptable. The power of detention is to be extended to those who are already here, but no provision is made in the Bill or any other associated, subordinate legislation for challenging the lawfulness of a detention. We are all aware of the stresses and strains on the system and the inadequacy of places in this country. The Government promise to increase the number of people held in detention by providing 250 extra places, but that addition will merely make a small dent in the pile if we are to deal with 25,000 people per half year.
The absence of a right to an oral hearing on appeal and the fact that there is no right of appeal when an initial appeal is refused is-a matter to which we shall return in Committee.
Provisions to extend the liability of carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 have been widely criticised by everyone with a knowledge of how that Act has worked. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave some examples of difficulties encountered by British Airways. But other, more ludicrous examples have been brought to my attention. Hoverspeed was fined for its failure to satisfy itself on the adequacy of the papers of a military band from Nepal.
The most disturbing aspects of the Bill, and the ones which reveal most about the Government's true intentions in introducing the deplorable package, are the criteria for decision-making which are to be used under the amended draft immigration rules. I deplore the absence of the possibility of debating and amending those rules in detail as is required. The representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London has said that if those rules are applied they will certainly constitute a violation of our international obligations.
Paragraph 6 of the rules provides that failure to apply immediately on arrival in Britain can lead to asylum applications being rejected. But it is perfectly possible that conditions will change following the arrival in this country of a person who subsequently seeks to claim asylum. In any event, he may be fearful when he arrives here, and it takes time to obtain advice.
The requirement for prompt and full disclosure is not defined. What is required is not made known and those who have escaped from oppression have every reason to fear the circumstances with which they are faced, the more so if they are unfamiliar with this country.
Most difficult of all to justify is the proposal that if an asylum seeker arrives without a passport, that in itself may be taken as a reason for rejecting his claim if there is reason to believe that he destroyed the documents that he used. That, too, is a direct violation of the 1951 United Nations convention.
In a short passage of his speech, the Home Secretary sought to justify the repugnant provision that applicants might have their cases rejected if they had been involved in any activity calculated to enhance their asylum applications. Of course, had they been engaged in any such activity, the matter would be considered by tribunal, but the fact that this has been singled out for special mention suggests that it is to be given weight and makes it clear that the purpose of the proposal is to prevent those seeking to stay here from raising their voices against the regimes of which they are fearful.
The provision that requires the applicant to show that he did not have an opportunity to move to another part of the country from which he has come is almost indescribably harsh. It might be called the international on-your-bike rule. If a Tamil is being persecuted in the north of Sri Lanka, is he supposed to believe that he will be better off in some other part of the island? How is he supposed to prove that to an adjudicator? How is all this to be done within the 42-day period, the maximum time allowed for consideration assuming that all internal appeals are allowed? Is he supposed to adduce evidence about the conditions in certain villages in Sri Lanka—about the balance of the racial makeup there, or about the nature of the policing of the village, or about whether representatives of the Sri Lankan Government are seeking to enforce the law?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the circumstances in a village in Sri Lanka or in a town in Yugoslavia prove to be unsafe, no questions may be asked about the rest of the country, so the applicant has carte blanche for asylum here?

Mr. Maclennan: No, the Minister is trying to reverse my argument. I say that the onus of proof should not rest on the applicant in this case. The surrounding facts of an application are of great importance, but they cannot be dealt with in 42 days. That is why there have been such long delays in dealing with these cases—it takes time to get at the truth of the matter. Making the asylum seeker prove that he cannot safely move to another part of the country is quite unthinkable.
Then there is the extraordinary proposal that if an applicant is "part of a group" his case is not to be considered individually. That is a clear denial of justice. The rule does not describe or define what a group is and it is certainly a violation of the 1951 convention, which specifically provides that each applicant must have his case individually assessed.

Mr. Terry Dicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate Mr. Speaker said that if we kept speeches short we should all be able to speak, but the hon. Gentleman has gone on and on and on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker did express the hope that speeches before 7 pm would be brief enough to avoid the necessity to impose a limit between seven o'clock and nine o'clock. I very much hope that hon. Members will respect that.

Mr. Maclennan: A number of Members from the Conservative party and from the main Opposition party are participating in this debate, but I am the only speaker from my party and I have a right to be heard. If Conservative Members are not interested, they can do what they did earlier, and what the Home Secretary has done throughout the debate, and go out.
An asylum application supersedes any other application and removes any other right of appeal under the immigration appeal system. That is designed to put strong pressure on people to stop them claiming asylum—even if they are entitled to it—if they happen to be here in any other guise, for instance, as students or visitors.
The provisions are truly repugnant in a civilised society. They are a disgraceful reflection on our reaction to the international problem which this Bill does nothing to

resolve. There will be attempts to amend the Bill to render its provisions less harsh and more effective at weeding out truly bogus claims. As it stands, the Bill is harsh and will not weed out such claims. The proposed immigration rules are monstrous and should be completely rejected if they cannot be substantially amended.

Sir Philip Goodhart: There were moments, I confess, during the past half hour when my attention wandered a little, but I think that I detected a gap in the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I do not recall a single reference to his party's policy on the asylum problem.
It is ironic that it should be necessary to bring in an Asylum Bill at this time. In the past three years, there has been an unprecedented collapse of oppressive regimes in many parts of the world, from Chile to East Germany, from South Africa to the Soviet Union, from Albania to Ethiopia. Governments who had little respect for basic human rights have been replaced or overthrown, yet while organised totalitarian tyrannies have been in retreat on almost every continent, the numbers of people seeking political asylum in this country have increased 10 times, and it is that surge in numbers that makes a new Asylum Bill necessary.
Procedures and practices which more or less work when we are dealing with a hundred applicants for political asylum each week clearly do not work when applications approach 1,000 per week. There is also the problem that the most perfunctory request for political asylum temporarily overrides all immigration controls. Unfortunately, that is understood in many parts of the world. No one who utters the magic words "political asylum" can be removed from this country before his case has been determined by the Secretary of State.
The Bill is necessary, but I doubt whether it will have the impact that some people expect. I am sceptical, because I know how difficult it is to draw a precise line between economic migrants and genuine refugees. I have seen that problem at first hand in the camps for Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, and I see it regularly in my constituency surgeries. I was visited in my surgery on Friday by a doctor from Somalia who wanted to discuss his application for political asylum. His brother came here from Somalia almost exactly two years ago and was accepted as a political refugee almost immediately. The doctor has four sisters and a brother-in-law living in my constituency, and one of his sisters has 10 children with her. Most members of the family arrived with counterfeit visas in their passports.
In the past couple of years, a sizeable community of Somalis has appeared in my constituency, and most of the 20 houses made available by Bromley council to the admirable Refugee Arrivals Project, which is based at Heathrow, have gone to people from Somalia. I have great sympathy for those people, because it is plain that law and order has collapsed throughout most of Somalia. Life in the capital, Mogadishu, has become so hazardous that western embassies have closed and western aid workers and western journalists have all left.
However, my constituency cannot sensibly be expected to house a significant fraction of the 500,000 residents of Mogadishu whose lives are presently at risk. We face a difficult and philosophical problem because Somalia is not


the only country in which law and order have virtually totally disappeared in recent months. Whatever we say, we are hardly likely to force Croat visitors to this country to return to Dubrovnik at this time.
I was slightly surprised by the opposition to clause 2 expressed by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and by all other Opposition spokesmen. That clause requires the fingerprinting of applicants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said in an intervention during the Home Secretary's speech, there is pressure from many of our European partners to standardise asylum procedures. I hope that we will resist that, but there is no doubt that Opposition Members are anxious to see full harmonisation with our partners, and plainly the pressure to have identity cards with fingerprints will grow. Identity cards are a rather good idea, because they will reduce the pressures on immigration officers carrying out checks at the points of entry.
As a London Member, I am particularly interested in clause 3, which makes substantial changes in the requirement placed on local authorities to house asylum seekers. Most if not all the London boroughs will welcome that clause.
However, I am concerned that the clause does not solve or even address the key issue, which is the fact that London authorities have to bear the substantial cost of housing and looking after asylum seekers. London charge payers have to meet those bills even though the problem is national. The problem substantially affects my London borough, but it has a much worse effect in Westminster, which this year expects applications from about 320 households which require housing. That represents about one third of the people on Westminster's homeless list. The social services departments of many London boroughs also face substantial costs.

Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that he is aware of the provisions of the Housing Act 1985. The problem faced by all local authorities, not only by those in London, is that they have to prove that a person who has applied to be listed as homeless has not made himself homeless intentionally. It is difficult to check the genuineness of a claim by someone from the other side of the world. That problem arises in my constituency and in my borough of Hillingdon, which contains Heathrow.

Sir Philip Goodhart: That is an important issue, and no doubt it will be examined closely in Committee. In the past year, Hillingdon has spent about £800,000 on looking after 42 unaccompanied children. The problem is pressing, and the Government will have to find money to help the London boroughs.

Mr. Michael Shersby: The problem of Somalia to which my hon. Friend has referred in his excellent analysis is causing considerable concern to London boroughs, because it is necessary for unfortunate people from that country to be accommodated in boroughs all over London and in cities as far away as Liverpool. There is not enough emergency accommodation to house those people.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has reinforced my point.
Many of the German lander—the provincial governments—both Socialist and Conservative, have come together to institute—this is now German Government policy—hostels and transit camps for asylum seekers in abandoned army camps. I suspect that the demand for hostels here will be heard more widely in the months to come.
The best method of dealing with refugee problems lies in finding alternative shelter for potential refugees close to their normal homes. This point was stressed, quite rightly, by the Home Secretary. We need the Bill, but I hope that we shall substantially increase the amount of help given to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, so that potential asylum seekers can be helped closer to their homes. The autumn statement increased in real terms the Overseas Development Administration budget. I hope that we shall give a lead, so that our European partners will support the UNHCR as generously as we do. The Bill is necessary, but it is also necessary to give more help nearer home, to those at risk from famine and anarchy.

Mr. Ron Leighton: It is right to reorganise the asylum division of the Home Office and increase its staffing and resources. It is ludicrous that so little has been put into it hitherto. It is also right that, as we have been urging, the asylum claims should be examined more expeditiously. Under-resourcing over many years had led to inordinate delays. Cases are taking 16 months or more, with a backlog of 60,000, and this must be rectified, especially as, we have been told, the number of applications has increased by 10 times in four years—from 5,000 in 1988 to 50,000 this year.
While remedying the deficiencies in the procedures and ensuring that cases are dealt with properly and without delay, it is vital that each application is dealt with fairly and adequately, that each applicant has access to independent legal advice, and that there is a right to proper appeal—a right that the Bill does not give. Reference is often made to Britain's honourable and proud tradition of welcoming refugees, but in those days they consisted mainly of persecuted individuals. One thinks of someone like Karl Marx who, expelled from continental countries, was allowed into this country to sit in the British Library and write books. Our record in allowing in Jewish refugees from Hitler was not quite so good.
The world has changed radically since the admission of individuals such as Marx and vastly in the 40 years since the 1951 convention was drawn up. Then, what was uppermost in people's minds was the second world war and its aftermath and the convention was framed mainly to deal with Europe rather than Africa or Asia. Much of the third world was colonised then.
Forty years on, the world is transformed. The UN tells us that there are now 17·5 million officially registered refugees—there are probably many more who are not registered—with an extra 2 million refugees in the past two years. In addition, there are many more millions of migrants and what might be termed environmental refugees—people leaving because of natural disasters or because the land, as the result of soil erosion, deforestation and the spread of deserts, can no longer support the population. These people are fleeing starvation.
Throughout history, there has been migration. Among the greatest migrants were the British, who populated


Canada, Australia, New Zealand and large parts of Africa, often without so much as a "by your leave" to the local population. The United States was created by migration and the modern world has been sculpted by migration. In our strife-torn world, millions of people are on the move, in fear or in hope. Hundreds of thousands were displaced by the Gulf war and hundreds of thousands seek to escape misgovernment, civil conflict, wars, economic collapse and starvation. This affects countries such as Somalia, which has been mentioned, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zaire, Liberia, Mozambique, Uganda and Angola. There are millions of refugees in Afghanistan, as there are in Cambodia. There are millions of Palestinian refugees and Sri Lanka is being torn apart.
There is then eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. For years we urged rulers there to let their people go and to make their people free. That is being done, so many people may turn up on our doorsteps not with their tanks but with their suitcases. We have a new phenomenon across the world, whose economic and social dimensions are beyond our previous experience, and we must address this. In doing that, we should beware of too much partisan debate, of playing the race card and of charges and counter charges that sweep away reason.
In dealing with this new phenomenon, I have two points to make. First, it is obviously impractical to solve the problems of war-torn African states or of conflicts in countries such as Sri Lanka by moving their populations to western Europe. Presumably, if any of those Kurds who desperately clung to snowy slopes at border mountains, trapped between the armies of three states that did not recognise them, had been able to reach an aeroplane and fly to Britain, they would have qualified for asylum under the 1951 convention. That could not happen now because of the so-called safe havens.
That may give us a pointer to one approach. It is vital for the affluent countries to do much more through the United Nations to get support and assistance in situ. Most refugees go to neighbouring countries, which are often living at subsistence levels themselves. On a far more extensive scale than we have done hitherto, we must help refugees in their own and neighbouring countries. The world is divided into a number of zones of wealth surrounded by vast hinterlands of poverty. It would be impossible for the affluent to live in peace if conflict after conflict exploded in the third world. We need a much stronger global response and more active aid policies. There cannot be stability while 25 per cent. of the world's population consumes 80 per cent. of the planet's resources. The affluent world found millions for the Gulf war and must find millions to tackle the problems of refugees at source.
My second point—about which the Bill is silent—concerns refugees who gain access to Britain. There should be an official Government refugee resettlement programme. At the moment, refugees coming into the ports of entry are left on their own. They have no guidance and they are left to their own devices. The Government take no further responsibility for them. They wash their hands of the matter. As a consequence, the refugees gravitate to a handful of boroughs that are primarily—I heard the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) refer to Bromley—Labour boroughs, in London and in one or two other cities. These boroughs, like the London borough of Newham, are weighed down with more than their fair share of problems. In Newham, our housing is officially

the worst in the country. There are thousands on the housing waiting lists and there are hundreds of families in bed and breakfast. One in five of the male population is unemployed. The borough is struggling to raise its low levels of educational achievement. The borough willingly assumes its responsibilities to help and cope with refugees. Many other London Tory boroughs, however, do not help; nor do the Government give hard-pressed Newham the assistance that it needs. That is intolerable. The Bill is silent on an issue that, so far, has never been addressed in the House.
Newham's refugee population amounts to between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of its entire population, and many different communities are involved. A fortnight ago, I was invited to a meeting of Somali refugees in East Ham town hall. The meeting was packed; many hundreds of people attended. I was presented with a document whose contents I discussed two days later with community leaders. According to that document, the borough of Newham contains 7,000 Somali refugees. Describing the plight of Somali children, it explains:
Many of them have not been in school for several years when they arrive in this country".
The problem is not just that the children have not attended a school where English is taught; they have not been to a school of any description for years on end. They then come, in vast numbers, to a London borough.
The document continues:
It is difficult for them to adjust to the schools in this country. The problem is especially great with the over 16's who do not know English and who cannot go to school. It is getting increasingly difficult to get into further education".
How, indeed, can someone who does not speak English do that?
Most of the Somali students don't speak English and have no idea about the British curriculum".
Somali students, says the document, would like to be provided with home tutoring; but who will pay?
As I have said, my borough's levels of educational achievement are low. League tables of exam results will soon be published; given that a class may contain 20 children who cannot speak English, its position in any league table is bound to be low. That is a problem also for teachers if they are to be paid in line with examination results.
As I have said, Newham's housing provision is officially deemed the worst in England and Wales. According to the Somali document, accommodation provided by the council is normally in one of two categories—bed and breakfast, or hostels. On arrival, refugees and immigrants are
classified into families with small children and elderly people who are re-accommodated into temporary accommodation".
Each bed-and-breakfast place costs £14,000.
The document complains that few people are given council housing. That is a reasonable complaint, but our current waiting list amounts to nearly 10,000. How can Newham help, unless it in turn is helped by the Government?
Health is another problem. The document talks of "
Inaccessibility…the majority of Somali people do not speak English.
It talks of "lack of information", and of "cultural and social problems". The Government seem to have washed their hands of the problem: they are taking no responsibility for it, and that is not good enough.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton: No; I am taking up too much time already. I am glad, however, that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to what I am saying.
The document says that Somalis who visit DSS offices are treated in a humiliating manner. So many people are now visiting the office at Jubilee house that they cannot get in. When Newham Members raise the problem with social security Ministers, they are given the official answer that it is caused by the number of Somali refugees. Apparently, they are happy for the people of Newham—and the Somali refugees—to stand outside in the rain.
It is difficult for Somali refugees to obtain employment. That does not surprise me, given that 20 per cent. of the male population in Newham are currently unemployed. I understand that 250 unaccompanied children cost a social services department £5 million. Are the Government at all interested in that figure? Have they a point of view? It is clear that they do not wish to take responsibility. If they did, they would be forced to answer parliamentary questions and they might find that they were responsible for feeding the refugee population. They would like all the refugees to go off to Newham and similar boroughs, and for the Home Office to hear no more about the matter. But that cannot continue: I think that London Members on both sides of the House will say the same.
Let me make it clear that my borough is willing to help. It accepts its responsibility. But what of the Government's responsibility? A national programme must be set up. The Government must face up to their obligations. It is no good operating a policy of laissez-faire, and leaving the task to the few hard-pressed London boroughs.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) began by criticising the Government for being ill prepared for the tenfold increase in the number of asylum seekers—which, he went on to say, was entirely unexpected. He did not tell the House that the Government had increased the number of Home Office staff dealing with the increase by the same amount.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the millions now on the move from east to west. He could not, of course, be expected to remind us that they are on the move from socialism.
Finally, he made the important point—very convincingly—that the problems which emerge from relaxed immigration and asylum laws are monumental in terms of employment, education and housing in his own and many other boroughs. The question is whether we should be doing something about those problems—and it is precisely the need to answer that question which justifies the Bill. That is the "national programme" the hon. Gentleman called for and it is a pity that he will not be supporting it.
I do not want to take up the House's time by repeating what I said in last week's debate on the Gracious Speech. I fear, however, that many people will be concerned about the no doubt well-intentioned but somewhat muddled assertion made by some churchmen in the past day or two. It is strange how often their observations on Government policy just happen to sound as though they are speaking for the Labour party when it is well known that the church is entirely apolitical.
For example, I have just heard Bishop Butler, the Bishop of Leicester, say on the BBC that he doubted

whether the flow of refugees was overwhelming, as there had been a decline in the past month or so. He went on to say—provoked, no doubt, by my impertinent suggestion that he might not be living in the real world—that the ordinary people to whom he spoke every day were not worried about the possibility that too many immigrants or asylum seekers were coming into the country; they were concerned, he said, about whether Britain was still a haven for the oppressed.
But in the real world, we are seeing an explosion—a tenfold increase in the number of asylum seekers over three years, 75 per cent. being bogus applicants who were merely trying to dodge the immigration procedures.

Mr. Corbyn: How do you know'?

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman must have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary give an example. Applicants who had not enclosed their passports were asked to come forward and reply to questioning, and 129 out of 130 did not turn up. That, surely, is as good an indication as any that all is not well with their applications—and it is a much higher proportion than 75 per cent.

Mr. Corbyn: Rather than bandying such figures about, and then praying in aid one example given by the Home Secretary, will the hon. and learned Gentleman be a little more cautious and consider the circumstances in which people seek political asylum? They do so because of fear of oppression, of the murder of their families or of a repetition of what they have suffered in prison under repressive regimes. The hon. and learned Gentleman has cast doubt on the validity of many applications. The danger is that, given attitudes such as his, people will be returned to the oppression from which they have tried to flee.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking nonsense. The purpose of our asylum-seeking provisions is that we should be able to identify clearly those in fear of persecution, and we do so. The whole business is before the House because so many people are making applications that the procedure is breaking down and we cannot make such identifications. Such a criticism does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth; he has often drawn to the attention of the House one case of a person suffering in the national health service as proof positive that the NHS is breaking down. We can all bandy cases about, but the example that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave was not one case but 129 cases out of 130—a good cross-section.
I can provide more statistics. Three-quarters of those applying for asylum were already living here. They are not terrified refugees who have just landed on our shores complaining about persecution. They are people whose temporary visitors' permits were expiring, and who came forward to tell us that the real reason that they had applied to come here, which they did not tell us at the time, was their fear of persecution. When faced with the facts, some then stand up and loudly declare that Saddam Hussein is the most pitiful creature known to man. Then they explain that it would be unfair to send them back because they would be likely to be suspended by their various parts as soon as they returned, so they are in fear of persecution. If the system is being abused in that way, it is only right and proper that it should be examined and that appropriate steps should be taken.
Two thirds of applicants at ports just happen to arrive with forged or mutilated documents, or say that they have lost their documents, which blew away in the wind on the boat. All that makes processing their applications slower and more difficult, and often in two or three years' time it is not possible to send the people back because they have married and have children, and parish priests and others come forward to say what worthy members of the community they are and what inhumanitarian hardship would be caused if we sent them back. The fingerprint provision in the Bill is therefore important, and eminently sensible.

Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, good as his argument is, the mark of the true refugee—the really oppressed political refugee who has been living in terror—is that he will arrive with a forged document? It is important for the person adjudicating to be able to separate people who have forged documents for bogus reasons from people with forged documents who are true refugees and have a right to British protection.

Mr. Lawrence: I agree. What my hon. Friend says is always sensible, and would not benefit from any further comment of mine.
What I have described has led to the present situation, in which the system for checking asylum seekers is breaking down. There was a stockpile of 27,000 cases last year, and this November the number has risen to 60,000. The fact that the backlog is taking three years to deal with is making things worse—for example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East.
That is the real world, with 16 countries in western Europe and north America adopting legislation similar to ours, and 78 per cent. of Britons, according to a MORI poll, supporting the need for such legislation, with only 15 per cent. opposing it. If the bishops met more of the 78 per cent. and fewer of the 15 per cent., churches might not have to close due to empty pews.
The consequence of doing little or nothing about the explosion of numbers not only in Britain but throughout western Europe—it is estimated that there will be half a million applications this year—would be an increase not just in nationalism, including all the hideous examples of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke, but in racism and communal unrest. If the Government responded to the bishops' disquiet and did nothing, there would be much communal unrest and racial outbursts would follow—and no doubt the bishops would then attack the Government for causing them.
The views of their Graces the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, who wrote a letter published in today's edition of The Times, must always be treated with the utmost respect. The media and hon. Gentleman today in their speeches described that letter as revealing the churches' total opposition to the Bill, but on closer reading it reveals nothing of the sort. Their Graces say only that "some aspects" of the Bill and the draft procedure give cause for concern. They accept that
the difficulties faced by Governments in coping with unpredictable influxes of refugees should not be minimised".
The concerns raised in the letter involve appeals. The specific worry is that in some cases there will be only a right to seek leave to appeal, and that an application for such leave will have to be lodged within three days of the refusal, without the applicant seeing the grounds. Their

Graces consider that such procedures are too tight and do not take into account genuine refugees' fears on arrival. They ask, reasonably, that those points be carefully considered and the procedure amended to take account of genuine refugees.
I do not consider that to be an all-out attack on the Bill. In any event, I consider their Graces' fears groundless. Under British law, the right to appeal often requires, as step one, that leave be sought. That means simply that those who have to consider the appeal have a preliminary look at the claim to see whether it may have a sensible basis which requires further consideration. That is all part of the appeal process. Anyone can call that process up by exerting their right to appeal. Anyone who says that that cannot happen or does not happen, that it is not part of the appellate process, is playing with words and talking nonsense. A British citizen seeking justice often has to have his case passed through a preliminary sieve so as not to waste time on considering hopeless appeals. Otherwise the system would clog up. It is not unreasonable to expect asylum seekers to go through the same procedures. Their Graces' concern mystifies me.
Their Graces' concern that the applicant will have only three days to lodge an appeal has no merit either. The asylum seeker will have three days, not to prepare his case and make his appeal—he will have six weeks for that—but to lodge his appeal. That can be done in five minutes, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has allowed three days so that the applicant can seek advice from the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service or other independent legal advice. That is a benefit, not an obstacle. Here again their Graces' fears are unfounded. The letter to The Times is not the all-out attack on the Bill portrayed in the debate and by the media, and in any event their Graces' concerns do not have foundation.
As one might have expected, a more pungent attack came from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I doubt whether there was much merit in any of his arguments. If the decision, not yet made, that we should not give limitless expensive legal aid, involving solicitors and barristers, free to 30,000 people refused asylum, whatever their race or colour and wherever they come from, is against the Race Relations Act, so much the worse for the Act—in that case, it should be amended. But the right hon. Gentleman discredited his speech by sinking to abuse. I am used to the right hon. Gentleman claiming for himself and his party monopolies on decency and caring but, frankly, it is a disgrace when a right hon. Member stoops so low as to play the racist card. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman doing so at his own party conference, but there is no need for him to attract media attention by doing it in the House. It would have been much better if he had not done that.
According to the MORI poll, 78 per cent. of the public back the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should have more sense than to brand that overwhelming majority of the British people as racist. If that is the level of his political judgment, that 78 per cent. will know whom to choose as the more credible, caring and decent Home Secretary, fit to guide the nation's home affairs.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the House that we are now in the period during which speeches must be limited to 10 minutes.

7 pm

Mr. Mike Watson: As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, the British Government are legally obliged to provide asylum to people fleeing serious human rights violations. That needs to be stated again, because Conservative Members do not seem to have grasped it. The Bill before us can only result in the Government's failing to meet those obligations.
The Home Secretary presented the options in terms of extremes: either we accept his proposals or we are left with what he terms "an open-door policy". That is palpable nonsense, yet the right hon. Gentleman continues to repeat it. No Opposition Member has advocated—I certainly do not advocate—that people who are not genuine asylum seekers should be admitted through that door, but the very purpose of procedures to cover asylum applications must surely be to distinguish between those who are genuine and thus qualify and those who are not genuine. If people fleeing persecution do not have effective access to the procedures set down by the Government of the United Kingdom, that in itself signifies that the Government are failing to meet their obligations under the United Nations convention. The fact that the number of applicants has increased, as so many Conservative Members have stressed, should not in itself be used as an excuse for escaping those obligations.
That is not to say that the current asylum procedures are satisfactory. Like many other hon. Members, I have had cause, on numerous occasions, to intervene with the Home Secretary on behalf of asylum seekers because they have been facing deportation to a future which was at best uncertain. They have included Kurds and Shias from Iraq, Sri Lankans and many others. All too often, they have not received the sympathetic response that I believe they deserve.
The need to institute a right to appeal is long overdue, but the so-called "fast-track approach" introduced in clauses 5 and 6 is hardly the right means of achieving that. Such is the speed involved in the 48-hour appeal that it could better be termed the "supersonic-track approach" than the "fast-track approach". An application for leave to appeal to the special adjudicator—and I stress that it is only an application for leave to appeal—must be made within 48 hours of the applicant's receiving notification of the Home Office's decision to refuse asylum. If an applicant is allowed to appeal, a determination must be made within three days. Not only does that allow the special adjudicator precious little time to undertake what should be a rigorous examination of the applicant's case; worst of all, such applications are to be determined without the applicant's even having recourse to a hearing. That will do nothing for the United Kingdom's standing in terms of its obligation to apply the 1951 United Nations convention fairly and effectively.
Perhaps the most serious aspect of the Bill is the removal of the right to legal aid at the appeal, which will deny asylum seekers access to the expertise of many solicitors who currently provide invaluable advice and assistance with asylum applications.
It is said that the refugee unit of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service will fill the yawning gap that the withdrawal of legal aid will leave, but UKIAS has already rejected the part of the Bill in question as
a denial of natural justice".

UKIAS admits that it is quite unable to provide the legal advice necessary. Few of its staff are even legally qualified and, in any case, there are too few of them. UKIAS deals with many immigration cases and I have had regular recourse to consulting it, so I know that it is understaffed. I know that extra resources are to be made available to it, but, if UKIAS itself says that the resources will not enable it to do the job, the Government ought surely to reconsider the whole question of legal aid.
Quite apart from that, there are only eight UKIAS offices in the United Kingdom. What happens if an asylum seeker finds himself or herself in an area without a conveniently placed UKIAS office, bearing in mind the fact that he or she has only 48 hours to apply for the right of appeal? How will that be achieved? Effective legal representation is surely indivisible from a credible appeals procedure which, clearly, there will not be in this case.
The time limits within which applications for leave to appeal must be submitted and determined leave applicants little opportunity to consult an independent legal representative—a right which everyone, whether a United Kingdom citizen or someone seeking asylum, should have. Where is the justice in that? There is none. But justice is not really the name of the game when it comes to the Bill. The rules accompanying the Bill, which outline plans for the detention and fingerprinting of asylum seekers, are discriminatory and will undoubtedly criminalise innocent people. The assumption is that every asylum seeker is guilty of a bogus application unless he or she can prove otherwise. There is no benefit of the doubt.
We have heard in what I can only describe as the intemperate rantings of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr.Evans) what the extremists—the hardliners in the Tory party—really feel about foreigners. The hon. Gentleman's speech was one of the most distasteful that I have had the displeasure to hear during my time in the House. It revealed the kind of xenophobia and paranoia that are stirring up hatred in France and Germany and are fuelling increasing support for neo-Nazi parties in those countries—the Front National in France and the Republican party in Germany. The hon. Gentleman's speech might more appropriately have been delivered at a National Front rally. If it had been, it would have met with rapturous applause, doubtless followed by a forest of "Seig Heil" salutes. Heaven help us if the hon. Gentleman and his type ever become influential in any political party that gains electoral support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really!"] Convervative Members may boo and hiss, but the fact remains that such ultra-right views fail to accept that anyone has the right to seek asylum here. Hansard will show that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield illustrated that all too clearly. He said, "Close the door and bolt it, as of now, for a period of two years." Who is to say that, if that happened, the two-year period would not be increased?
The Government, of course, do not go that far, but they, too, fail to understand what is involved in fleeing persecution. Clause 7, for example, places restrictions on airline and shipping companies, requiring passengers to provide what is termed "valid travel documentation" at the point of exit. In many cases, that is simply impossible. Companies are to be instructed to reject anyone travelling on false documents. But how else are people fleeing persecution to leave the country in which they are being persecuted? It is hardly likely that they will be issued with a passport and a neat visa stamp, yet the Home Office


appears to think that they are in the same position as someone seeking simply to emigrate from the United Kingdom. That is nonsense. By denying genuine political refugees the right to leave their country to seek asylum, the Government are denying them justice and are thus in breach of the 1951 convention.
The Bill is wholly inadequate and will do nothing to improve the rights of asylum seekers. On close inspection, it seems designed simply to reduce the numbers being admitted, irrespective of their right to be admitted. What we need is a fair procedure which respects human rights and is capable of ensuring that genuine asylum seekers are allowed to stay. That the Government are clearly incapable of introducing such procedures is yet one more illustration of the fact that they have lost the right to govern. Asylum seekers, among others, must be thankful that they will not be required to do so for much longer.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) will forgive me if I do not follow him in everything that he said. I am pleased to see him in his place, but would wish to point out to him that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) were made with great knowledge and reflected the views of many of my hon. Friend's constituents and of many people in this country. The hon. Gentleman castigated my hon. Friend in a way that brought shame both to him and to the Labour party.
Conservative Members are fed up with the pompous and almost privileged accusations from Opposition Members that we do not understand the problem of large-scale immigration and the different cultural activities in our towns and cities. Forty per cent. of the occupants of Luton come from ethnic backgounds and some of them are second and third generation immigrants.
I need no lessons from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central or his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench about community relations. If the accusation of racist, something with which Opposition Members castigate us, means that we are concerned about anxieties expressed by parents about the fact that some schools in my constituency have an intake of children 95 per cent. of whom cannot speak English, then I am a racist. If I am concerned about the cultures in the town that I represent, which have changed so much over the past few years because of so many activities, then I admit to being a racist.
Conservative Members are aware of the genuine and honest fears expressed by many people in this country about the large number of people who have entered this country over the past few years. We are also aware of the danger to the excellent community relations in my town and elsewhere of the continued acceptance of such large numbers of asylum seekers, the majority of whom are bogus, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have explained tonight. Such excellent relations may be exacerbated by the kind of remarks that we have heard from Opposition Members today.

Mr. Jim Lester: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Carlisle: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not; I have only a few minutes in which to speak.
Many people will share the view of some Opposition Members who have claimed that the Bill was a long time coming. It is regrettable that it has taken the Government some time to recognise that the problem was growing and is likely to get worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) pointed out that it is extraordinary that as the world is, we hope, becoming more tolerant and as barriers are being broken down, people will not be fleeing from their own countries in quite the same way. However, the number of people involved is considerable and, when they spill out into our towns and cities, they cause enormous problems in terms of pressure on social services and on the communities themselves.
Some hon. Members will recall a recent case in Luton which received national publicity in which three refugee seekers with suspected typhoid jumped hospital beds. Some of them visited an Indian restaurant in Luton and claimed that they were related to the restaurant's proprietor. Understandably there was immediately public panic and the restaurant was closed. Those three illegal immigrants jumped the hospital not so much in fear of their lives, but because they had no respect for the law or for the other people who were affected.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is in the Chamber. He was involved in the case of Kirujit Singh Chahal. It was typical of him to become involved in problems in another constituency, because he often does that. He took an interest in that case and tried to support that Sikh leader in his anxiety to avoid deportation. That matter is still before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bradford, West does not realise that there are as many people in Luton against Mr. Chahal's views who want to see him deported as there are who support them. The poison spread by the hon. Gentleman and the campaign were encouraged by local churches. I was told by the church that that man, who was a threat to national security, should be allowed to remain in this country for the sake of good community relations. That shows that not every case that comes before hon. Members is totally proved and perhaps we should all be a little more careful before jumping on a particular bandwagon.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) drew attention to the now infamous letter in The Times from the Archbishops of Westminster and Canterbury. My message to the Archbishop of Canterbury is simple: if he is concerned, as he should be, about the welfare of people in this country, and if he is concerned that the Bill will have such a devastating effect on relationships within this country, and if he is worried about what might happen to asylum seekers, why does he not open up Lambeth palace, a large and comfortable residence, and take some burden off local authorities—in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton)—and let them sleep there? There must be plenty of empty rooms there. Let him put his money where his mouth is. Why does he not tell the Church Commissioners to divert funds away from the stipends of priests and vicars to help those co-called asylum seekers? That kind of practical help and opinion would be better received on the Conservative Benches than pious words in opposition to a Government who are genuinely trying to tackle a problem which the Opposition parties have refused to face.
As Conservative Members have explained, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.


Hattersley) gave us no idea what a future Labour Government—should there ever be one—would do to tackle the problem. There is a genuine fear—and this is something the electorate should know—that if the Labour party were returned to power, it would prove true to form and return to its practices of the 1970s and grant not one, but two amnesties to people seeking political asylum or waiting for their immigration status to be proved. That is what an open-door policy means.
All I could gather from the long and boring speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was that he said nothing about what the Liberal party would do about what has become a considerable problem in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My colleagues are right to ask that. Liberal Members disappear as soon as they have made their contributions.
The number of bogus applicants at the moment—about 75 per cent.—is costing the rate and tax payers of this country an enormous amount of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) quoted the figure in today's The Times of £100 million on social security. That is a yearly figure. One wonders how much money will go into legal aid and how much will go into UKIAS. One wonders about the additional cost of the staff necessary to cope with such numbers.
Unless the Government, as they are doing tonight, take decisions to reduce those numbers and can then give proper consideration to the genuine refugee seeker—something we all want to see—unfortunately people will be hurt. It is always the case, as I have found with immigration cases in my constituency, that the people who are against further immigration are those who have had to go through the tortuous process—a process known to virtually all hon. Members—of waiting many years for relations and loved ones to come into this country legitimately and have then become very cross when other people jump the queue and enter before them.
That is why I am glad that the Government have had the courage to introduce the Bill. It will be welcomed throughout the country on the basis that our system, which must remain fair and equitable to those who genuinely seek a haven here, can be retained only if we sort out the numbers. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his tenacity in introducing the Bill and I hope that it will receive a fair wind.

Mr. Bernie Grant: The way in which asylum seekers are treated must be changed, but the major change must be in the length of time that it takes for people to receive asylum and for their families to be reunited.
The Bill is thoroughly disgraceful, racist and xenophobic. That was clear from the contribution of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). If it is not racist, why is the Commission for Racial Equality considering taking the Government to court over the issue? If it is not a racist Bill, why are there so many well-known racists present on the Conservative Benches?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am certainly not going to allow accusations of that nature. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw them and rephrase what he has to say.

Mr. Grant: I am not prepared to withdraw that remark. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether, in the best interests of the debate, he will rethink his claim and withdraw the accusation that he has just made.

Mr. Grant: A number of Conservative Members have played the racist card in several immigration debates. I am prepared to say that after your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the major reasons why the Bill——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his accusation? That is what I am asking him to do, in the best interests of the debate and of the House.

Mr. Grant: I have substituted the words that I have—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will deal with this matter. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the accusation that he has made. I understand that he is now going on to make his speech, but I need a clear withdrawal of the statement that he made.

Mr. Grant: I am not prepared to withdraw.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case——

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On three occasions, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) admitted to use of the word "racist" as it applied to himself.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening extremely carefully to this debate. Passions have been raised, understandably, very high. I am asking the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) in good faith to withdraw the statement that he made. I wish to hear his speech—the House wishes to hear his speech. He has a contribution to make, but we cannot and I will not allow such accusations to be made.

Mr. Grant: On the basis of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw my remark.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We will now hear what he has to say in the good faith that he has shown in the Chamber.

Mr. Grant: The Bill is certainly racist. The majority of asylum seekers are people of colour. I am not aware of millions of white east Germans, Poles or Russians flocking into this country. However, I am aware that many people of colour, whether they be Turkish, Kurdish, Somalian, Eritrean or whatever, wish to come to this country. The Bill is meant to play on racism. I suspect that the issues around the Bill will feature strongly in the run-up to the next general election.
There is a big problem for asylum seekers coming to Britain. Britain applies visa restrictions as soon as it is realised that there is a possible refugee problem. For example, in 1984, visas were slapped on in Sri Lanka when the problems started there. In 1989, when problems started for the Kurds in Turkey, Britain slapped on visa regulations. The same happened in Uganda in 1990. Britain then tells airlines and carriers that they cannot


bring anyone from certain countries without a valid visa. The Bill will double carriers' fines to £2,000. Last year, the Chancellor made about ft 5 million clear profit as a result of that practice. Some people might say that the Government are making a profit out of people's misery.
An asylum seeker cannot get a visa from a British embassy overseas. Therefore, that person must lie to get a visa. He or she must obtain a false visa or false documents of some sort. According to the Bill, that would be used against them and they would almost certainly be refused political asylum. Incidentally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, that is contrary to the United Nations convention on refugees.
If asylum seekers come to Britain via what the United Nations terms a safe country, they are returned to that safe country. The British Government do not investigate whether a country is safe. They automatically accept that, if a country has signed the United Nations convention, it is safe. Therefore, India returns refugees to Iran, Austria returns refugees to Lebanon, and Kenya returns refugees to Somalia.
The next problem of the Bill is the way in which the Government have introduced it—that is, by playing the numbers game. I shall quote some figures to try to ensure that we at least have an answer from the Government. According to the United Nations, there are 17·5 million refugees. Five per cent. of those refugees have asylum in Europe—a mere 875,000 are admitted. Pakistan has 37 times more refugees than the United Kingdom. Iran has 27 times more refugees than the United Kingdom. Malawi has more refugees than any other country. All those countries are considerably poorer than Britain, yet we have whingeing from the Government about how terrible it is that 50,000 applications are received every year.
The Government have said that only 200 refugees arrive at our ports every week. The impression that they give in the newspapers is that a flood of people are about to come to this country. The figures that the Government quote include reapplications from people who have been granted asylum and need to renew that asylum every four years. A similar situation applies to people with exceptional leave to remain. They need to reapply every year initially and then every three years. That group includes people who are legitimately here as students and visitors, but who have had to change their status because of political upheaval back home. The number of applications depends on what is happening in the world. In 1986, there were fewer applications than there were in 1985, and, in 1988, there were fewer than in 1987. Applications occur in cycles.
The Government also have a few other tricks up their sleeve. Until the mid-1980s, most people who applied were granted asylum status, and a few were given exceptional leave to remain. In the past five or six years, the Government have changed that trend. The majority are given exceptional leave to remain and the minority are given asylum status. The reason for that is that an asylum seeker's family is allowed to be reunited with that person. A person with exceptional leave to remain is not allowed to bring his or her family. Purely on the numbers game., the Government are giving more people exceptional leave to remain, not asylum status.
Also, the Government do not tell us how many refugees go back home. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will know that thousands of South Africans who

have been living in exile in this country have returned home. There are resettlement programmes to enable them to go back to their country. We never hear from the Government how many refugees go back home. Now that the situation has changed in Ethiopia, people in my constituency have started to go back to Ethiopia. Why do the Government not publish the figures if they want a decent debate on the issue?
The Government try to give the impression that refugees are totally hopeless and living off the dole. The majority of refugees whom I have come across are middle-class people who are in opposition in their own countries. That is why they are asylum seekers. They are doctors, nurses and so on. If they were given the chance, they would be able to look after their own interests in this country.
In the short time that is now left to me, I shall mention only two of the Bill's other problems. When asylum seekers arrive in this country, they have to make a prompt and full disclosure of all material factors. That is often difficult. Rape is a lawful method of torture in some countries, but women who have been raped are confronted by male immigration officers, while men who have been raped are confronted by female immigration officers. People who are disoriented are expected to give full and prompt disclosure of material factors because, if they do not, their claim could be refused. That is another aspect of the Bill that needs further consideration.
Finally, the Bill's provisions on fingerprinting are an insult. I was pleased when I heard the Prime Minister talk about a classless society and about the fact that all those who are admitted to or who live in Britain can expect equal treatment. I cannot see how the Bill can help the Prime Minister to achieve his vision. It will create not second-class, but third-class citizens who can be picked up at any time and fingerprinted. Their fingerprints could be held for 10 years or more and circulated to virtually all and sundry.
I oppose the Bill and suggest that the whole House does the same.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Just to prove what a softie I am, I gave the hon. Gentleman a couple of minutes of injury time.

Mr. Michael Shersby: This important Bill seeks to address the real problem of bogus asylum seekers. I shall confine my remarks to that precise aspect of a much bigger problem, because I do not want to become involved in a discussion of immigration as such. I want to deal only with the question of bogus asylum seekers. I am not alone in believing that that problem should be dealt with, because the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) replied to an intervention from me on 5 November, stating:
I have made it clear that I do not wish to see and would not allow in the bogus asylum seekers."[Official Report, 5 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 370.]
He then drew attention to comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in calling for penalties to deal with bogus asylum seekers. There is, therefore, a measure of agreement between the Opposition Front Bench and my right hon. and hon. Friends about the principal reason for the Bill.
There is an urgent need to deal with that problem, because we know that there has been a sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers, of whom a considerable number are bogus. On 2 July, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House that the number of asylum seekers rose from 5,000 per year in 1988 to more than 30,000 in 1990. He added:
From January to May this year, 21,000 applications were received—a rate of nearly 1,000 a week."—[Official Report, 2 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 165.]
There is no doubt that some of those applicants are bogus and there is every reason to believe that many applicants attempt to gain permanent admission to the United Kingdom through corrupt agents operating in this country, some of whom have already been prosecuted and convicted. That places a considerable burden on all those who are responsible for detecting and apprehending people who prey on other people's misfortune and misery. One has only to look at the numbers who claim asylum several months after their original arrival in the United Kingdom to understand that a proportion of them are not genuine. More than 26,000 such applications were made in the first nine months of this year, compared with 7,530 applications at the port of entry. The figures are higher due to the delays in recording applications.
I do not have the time to talk in detail about the mechanisms that are proposed in the Bill for dealing with that problem, so I shall confine my remarks to certain aspects that might interest the House. The Bill does not deal with legal aid. It does not need to, because the Government and the United Nations fund a free legal aid advice and legal representation service through the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. In addition, the Government fund free solicitors' advice through the green form scheme. That anomalous double provision will almost certainly be brought to an end. At 5 o'clock this afternoon, I received an answer to a written question in which I tried to ascertain the cost of legal aid to asylum seekers. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replied:
I understand that legal aid for all immigration cases was £2·65 million for 1990–91. No separate figure is available for asylum related costs. For the year—[Interruption] Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) will stop interrupting me.
The Minister's answer continues:
For the year ending March 1991, the Home Office provided UKIAS with £72,690, as part of the annual grant in aid, towards the cost of its Refugee Unit.
That is a comparatively small sum, as I am sure that Opposition Members will agree, but they will also agree that, because it is being increased by £1·6 million in a full year, UKIAS will be provided with a total of £1,672,690—a substantial amount which will be extremely valuable to that organisation as it deals with the problem of asylum.
I turn now to another matter of great importance that I should like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider carefully. One method used by bogus asylum seekers to try to remain in Britain is to enter into marriage as quickly as possible with a United Kingdom national. The information that I am about to give the House was given to me by registration officers in the London area. It is astonishing that an individual arriving at a port of entry can enter into a legal marriage with a person who is free to marry by licence, provided that that person has been

resident in the United Kingdom for 15 clear days. I am told by registrars in the London area that a wide variety of nationals are marrying British and/or EC nationals with visitors' passports who themselves may be overstaying their leave to remain in Britain. In addition, Irish nationals are marrying EC foreign nationals. If they do not marry by licence, those who come here from overseas are free to marry after seven days, plus 21 clear days before marriage.

Mr. Vaz: That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Shersby: I am introducing this matter because many registrars are encountering major problems relating to people's identity. Problems occur where a person gives a false identity by using another person's birth certificate. As a result, bogus marriages of convenience are taking place. Marriage to British and/or EC visitors within six months gives the spouse leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Vaz: How many such marriages have there been? Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shersby: There is clearly wide scope for abusing the immigration laws by those means, because there have recently been four cases of proven false identity—and that is only the tip of the iceberg. I should like to know what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is going to do about that. Why is there no provision in the Bill for registrars to question a person wishing to marry if that person is clearly overstaying the provisions of his or her visa?
Will my right hon. Friend consider implementing the recommendation on access to recent records as set out in paragraph 6.7 of "Registration: Proposals for Change", Cmd 939? That paragraph makes it clear that
the right of anyone to look up events—especially births—in public indexes, and then to buy certified copies of the records of them, offers scope for these certificates to be used too readily for the creation of false identities, for purposes of personation and fraud".
I call on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to amend the Bill in Committee to give the registration services legal powers to insist on evidence of identity in all cases of marriage, as recommended in paragraph 3.15 of the White Paper. That would give registrars the statutory power to call for documentary evidence of the age, identity and marital status of those who are married.
The General Synod of the Church of England has welcomed the proposal. That might be a matter of some interest to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who is seething in his seat below the Gangway. The proposal would go a long way to stopping the fraudulent use of birth certificates as identity in creating bogus marriages.
I have no more time, but the matter that I have raised is important and, as far as I am aware, has not been raised before in the House in connection with the problem of bogus asylum seekers and those who would bend the immigration laws. The information that I have given the House is based on facts which have been supplied to me in good faith by registration officers.

Mr. David Young: There is no division between Conservative and Opposition Members about the nature of the problem. However, there is anxiety on this side of the House about the means by which the


Government seek to deal with it. The real issue is not the number of illegitimate asylum seekers who try to gain entry. It is how many genuine people may be denied the right of asylum as a result of the methods used. I am not the only person who feels such disquiet. The Law Society, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Bar Council and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees all express some anxiety that legitimate refugees may be turned away.
My anxiety is caused by the methods adopted. For example, there will be only two days for an appeal and the impression is given that appeals will be made available when in fact only the right to appeal will be provided. The figures for 1990 show that 25 per cent. of asylum seekers were granted refugee status and 65 per cent. of applicants were allowed exceptionally to remain in Britain. That does not suggest to me that there has been an abuse of the system by applicants. Or do the Government admit that they knowingly allowed into Britain people whom they now claim were fraudulent asylum seekers who entered with the Government's full knowledge?
I am worried about the so-called fast-track process. It seems to me like throwing away the wheat with the chaff when doing some weeding. The process does not seem to aim to safeguard the genuine applicant for refugee status. It seems more like a neat bureaucratic method of getting rid of as many people as possible and granting them no redress once that bureaucratic decision has been made.
I am worried above all about the removal of legal aid. It is true that lawyers do not appear at immigration tribunals, but often solicitors prepare the case. To suggest that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, excellent organisation though it may be, can do the preparation is entirely misleading. For one thing, many towns, including my own town of Bolton, do not have a UKIAS office. For another, many offices do not have the resources or legal staff to prepare cases. The preparation of a case is as essential and as much the key to its favourable conclusion as putting the case at the tribunal.
One must also draw the attention of the House to the 1951 convention on refugees, which states that there should be free access to all courts. It is no good granting free access to courts if the means by which people may go to court—legal aid—is withdrawn. Everyone in the House knows that to go to law costs a great deal of money and that it is not simply a question of appealing to a court to obtain justice. Unless one has the financial resources to reach those courts and to brief solicitors and barristers, one's case is decided by default. Justice may be blind i n this country, but one requires an awful lot of cash to have her make the decision. That is where the legal system comes in.
Like many of my colleagues, I am worried about the Government's appointment of the airlines as virtual immigration officers. The staff of the airlines are trained to deal with air tickets. They are not immigration officers and they are not so trained. When they decide simply by going through the documents whether a man is carried or a woman is not carried they may condemn those passengers to death. No entry certificate is offered to a refugee. In order to become a refugee, a person may have had to falsify papers. To ask airline staff to decide whether those papers were obtained by false or fraudulent means in order to become a refugee is to dodge the whole question and turn one's back on those who may be in danger for their life. It was for the reason that I have described that, as The

Independent reported on 1 August 1991, UKIAS voted against the plans because it considered that they were contrary to natural justice. That is exactly my feeling.
In my constituency the proposals are viewed in a racialist context. When the Home Secretary made the proposals way back in the summer, he said that legal aid would also be withdrawn from other immigration cases. While that matter may not be under discussion tonight, to many of my constituents it is the thin end of the wedge. I am from a multi-racial town and I am worried about the raising of the spectre of mass immigration. It seems to provide the emotive atmosphere in which people are more worried about blocking fictitious immigration claims than applying justice.
It is not so long since one of our allies in the Gulf war appealed to the Iraqis to revolt and fight against oppression. We have no right to join in making such statements if we turn our back on the right of refugees legitimately to enter Britain. We know the danger that people face in countries such as Iraq. If only one man or woman is wrongly returned and sent to torture or death, the Government will have turned their back not only on that refugee but on everything that Britain has stood for. Britain has stood above all else for the right of individuals to protection from oppression, no matter from which country they come.
One aspect of the debate which gives me anxiety is the amount of time spent arguing about illegal immigrants. We are against illegal immigration. We are against the person who tries to get refugee status fraudulently. The important thing is that this measure should deal positively with the person who is in need of safety within our shores but who is perhaps without the right documents.
The Government are sending out the message, "We do not want you here, we have changed our policy and Britain is no longer the home of those who are persecuted in their own countries."

Mr. David Ashby: Refugees have been coming to this country for centuries. In the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, Jews from Germany and elsewhere came to this country; in the 17th century it was the Huguenots. The French came in the 18th century; Jews from Latvia and Estonia in Russia came in the 19th century; and this century those seeking refugee status from Nazi Germany, Uganda and Chile have found a safe haven in this country, which has a tradition as a refuge against oppression. We stand for that and I know that the Government also stand for it.
I am chairman of the south and central European committee of the British Refugee Council and I would fight for the 1951 convention to be preserved. I believe that the Bill does that, and I think that it is misunderstood by Opposition Members and by some Conservative Members. The Bill does not intend to change status, but merely deals with the procedure of achieving the 1951 convention and with ensuring that it works.
If we are to continue to be a country with a tradition of providing refuge against oppression, it is essential that we should be in a position to maintain the 1951 convention. The water has been muddied by bogus applications, which have resulted in all the problems that we have had to face. That is why the Bill has been introduced.
I cannot accept that the Bill is racialist. I would not support it for one moment if it were, because I am certainly opposed to racialism; in some ways, I am myself a refugee from it. By their very nature, refugees are from another nation or another race, but that does not make the Bill racialist. I deplore what has been said about racialism. The Bill is neutral—it deals with refugees and it tries to enhance the 1951 convention.
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for giving way during his speech, although he is not in his seat now. I asked him to comment on the fact that refugees are usually the very people who do not have passports.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in his seat to hear this, as we must remember that true refugees have suffered physical and mental torture, have often lived in fear, underground, and their departure is often an escape. They have lived a life of lies and they may well have escaped on forged documents. When they arrive here, their first words may well be lies. It is essential to bear in mind the fact that ordinary immigration officers may turn round people—I am bound to say the very people that Conservative Members have been so sceptical about—who may be refugees, whom we must preserve under the 1951 convention.
I am pleased that we have an appeals service. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about that. The issue of leave to appeal was dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, and he was correct to say that, in the main, appeals are dealt with that way.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed reports that the Bill provides for matters of law to be dealt with directly by a judge. It is essential that the people who adjudicate are of the highest calibre and that they can understand that the very person the immigration officer turns away may be the most genuine refugee. That is my most important argument. That is why the man on the ground and the adjudicator are so important.
The Bill has a positive side—it will speed up the process of dealing with applications for asylum status. The greatest injustice may be the long wait for leave to stay. I can think of no greater injustice than people waiting three or four years only to be told that they cannot stay. That is awful. The asylum procedure must be dealt with as quickly as possible but in a just way, in a manner that allows applicants access to help and advice.
The true asylum seeker may need advice, and the number of true asylum seekers is small. There has been an influx of applications, but they are from people who live in this country. People who arrive at the port or airport seeking asylum are few and far between.
I would like to think that, when people seek asylum, they at least get a helping hand, and that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service was there to help them and to try to get to the truth. We must remember that a man who has suffered mental and physical torture will take a long time to come to the truth.
I hope that, in Committee, provision will be made so that, where the adjudicator is satisfied, an adjournment can be granted on applications so that certain matters can be dealt with and there really will be a search for truth.
There has been an enormous change in the world, and there should be less demand for asylum. Perhaps, as has been said, bogus applications account for the increase. However, we must not forget that, at the beginning of the century, people were as complacent as I am being about how wonderful the world was, but the Russian revolution took place in 1917. Who knows what will happen in the future? It is therefore essential that the groundwork of the Bill is well laid.
The person at the door of our country—the port or the airport—needs a friend, and I hope that UKIAS will be sufficiently funded to be that friend. Also, I hope that it will get the message loud and clear that it should not support applications that are not well founded. Good lawyers advise a client to plead guilty when they are satisfied that the evidence is overwhelming. I hope that UKIAS will be sufficiently well funded to provide support for those who really need it and will employ someone of sufficient calibre and strength to tell bogus applicants, "I am sorry, we can't help you. You will have to go elsewhere or plead your own application, because we don't think you have a case."
The British Refugee Council, certainly my committee, has been supporting a committee that has been helping refugees from General Pinochet's Chile to return. They have been here for many years. We are extremely grateful to the British Government for the funding that allows the programme to exist. We have managed to return several families. It is difficult to do so after 10 years, but they want to go. I hope that the Government will continue to be as generous, so that we can return other refugees to Chile.

8 pm

Miss Kate Hoey: It is nice to follow the first Conservative Back-Bench Member who seems to have looked at the Bill without blinkers.
We should not discuss the Bill without understanding the climate and context in which it is being introduced. We are seeing a growth in neo-fascism and fascist groups throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, Austria and France. There is growing hostility to asylum seekers within Europe, spearheaded by organised right-wing groups. In this country, even some of our popular newspapers have attacked all asylum seekers as cheats who have no right to be here. I was disappointed that the Home Secretary spent so much of his time this afternoon outlining a few examples of asylum seekers who have been proved to be lying. The "bogus" tag has been used indiscriminately and has created a climate of hostility to new arrivals.
Furthermore, the unfavourable climate may have repercussions on the general attitudes to the black population in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary said that we must not provide the opportunity for the organised violence against asylum seekers in Europe to spread here. The Bill will do exactly that. No matter how much the Home Secretary genuinely may not want that to happen, the Bill will stir up racist feelings and will play on fears and prejudices. It will give the various groups and Tory Members who seek to play the race card the opportunity to do so. This afternoon, we have seen evidence of that here. If such passions are aroused in this Chamber today, there must be real concern about what will happen when it is discussed throughout the country.
Hon. Members should be aware of the widespread feeling among all the agencies that deal with asylum


seekers and refugees that there are no merits in the Bill as it stands. I am thinking of Amnesty International and the Churches. I abhor the criticism made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) of Lambeth palace, which is in my constituency. I pay tribute to the work of the churches in my borough and other inner-London boroughs on this issue.
This is not the time to press this Bill, even if there were merits in it, considering the climate in Europe. If the Home Secretary meant what he says about keeping public sympathy for genuine refugees, he would address the need for extra resources for the Home Office and Lunar house to speed up the procedures for asylum seeking. If those resources had been given three or four years ago, we would not have the long delays that lead to so much misery, and the small number of non-genuine asylum seekers would not be here for longer than we would all want.
The British Refugee Council is in my constituency, and I pay tribute, as will other hon. Members, to its work in helping to give support and advice to refugees. Of all organisations, it has an interest in ensuring that those who apply for asylum as a means of avoiding immigration regulations should not be allowed to enter the country. I know that it shares that view. The Home Secretary should have listened sooner to its representations.
No matter what the Home Secretary has said, clauses 5 and 6 mean that there will be no absolute right of appeal. All must seek leave to appeal from the special adjudicator who is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The special adjudicator will not grant leave to appeal if he, or perhaps she, is satisfied that the applicant does not have an arguable claim for asylum. That decision will be made without an oral hearing, and there will be no appeal against refusal. That is against natural justice.
Applications for leave to appeal must be made within 48 hours of the asylum seeker receiving notice that the application has been refused. It is assumed that the asylum seeker will receive that notification the day after it is posted. That is not something of which we can be certain. The British Refugee Council's concerns about these proposals must be listened to.
Many asylum seekers live in overcrowded, temporary accommodation, including hostels, where access to mail is not necessarily foolproof. Mail can be delayed. People who speak little or no English may not understand the need for speed, and it may take time to get the information translated. At this stage, asylum seekers may not have a legal adviser. They may not even have a friend.
Even when they have an adviser, that adviser will have to be contacted and an appointment made. The adviser will have to complete the relevant documentation based on the reasons given for the refusal of the application. The obvious implication is that many asylum seekers may miss the deadline and lose the chance to appeal.
Clause 7 raises the question whether the asylum seeker wishes to submit any variation or amplification of the notice of appeal. If so, it must be done within five days of receiving the notification. I do not believe that the genuine asylum seeker will be treated fairly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) went through the various clauses in detail and I do not want to add to anything that he has said. The Government could be taking many measures to ensure that refugees who have the right to stay in this country are assimilated and given equal opportunities. Apart from their security, the need for

independence and self-sufficiency is of paramount importance to them. Training and employment play a key role, yet there is no planned or co-ordinated policy to facilitate it.
Special programmes must be provided where needed to address the problems that refugees face through their past circumstances to give them equality of opportunity and to avoid eroding their talents and initiative. I get fed up with people always assuming that refugees have nothing positive to offer this country and that they are merely bringing or being problems. For too many, the lack of financial security, savings and a clear future mean that they have to live at subsistence level. Obviously, after what some of them have gone through, they can at least live in safety, but that is no basis for a completely new beginning after a shattered career, education and family life.
The definition of the Confederation of British Industry of the United Kingdom work force as "under-educated, under-trained and under-qualified" ironically does not apply to the majority of refugees, many of whom are highly qualified and skilled. Employers should be taking note.
No one is responsible for the education and training of refugees. The British Government are a signatory to the United Nations convention on refugees. As such, they have an obligation to ensure satisfactory resettlement. Unlike some European countries, there is no centrally planned and co-ordinated policy for educating and training refugees. They are expected to find their own way into our education system.
Much more could be done to help assimilate our refugees—for example, help with schooling and specialist support. Boroughs such as Lambeth need extra resources to provide the back-up. We have a large number of refugees, and we need extra resources. The Bill provides no support for the genuine refugee or assistance with the resettlement of refugees here. The Home Secretary has an opportunity to extend the scope of grants to local authorities under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1989.
Local authority associations have identified the need for additional resources to provide both housing and education of the children of refugees. My borough has a large number of refugees, and I am concerned that the Bill may enable some authorities to avoid any responsibility for refugees. The Bill will do nothing to assist the settlement of refugees in the United Kingdom.
Asylum seekers to this country are exactly that—they are seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, not in a particular local authority. It is vital that those boroughs that have, for historical or accidental reasons, a large number of refugees should not be financially penalised. Many of those boroughs also have the worst housing, longest waiting lists and highest poverty levels of the country.
There is no need for the Bill and for the hours of debate that will accompany it. We need an effort to be made to bring about international co-operation to remedy some of the factors that lead to people seeking asylum in this country. What is needed is an acceptance of our responsibilities under international law.
The Labour party wants application procedures to be speeded up so that we have a proper, fair and effective system that ensures that this country continues its long


honourable tradition of providing asylum for refugees. The Government will convince no one that they too wish to continue that tradition.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I support the Bill, but I have some criticisms of past Government policy.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) about the cost of immigration and the cost of refugees. That cost is increasing because of the number of children who are abandoned at Heathrow. My local authority, quite rightly, takes on those children because they are in need, but it receives no financial assistance to cope with them. My right hon. Friend should bear that in mind. It is no good arguing that we should take in asylum seekers and that we should process their applications quickly if, in the interim, no financial assistance is given to local authorities for that purpose.
I accept that the number of immigration officers at Heathrow has increased, but for a long time the numbers employed were well below what was required. Those officers do an excellent job and have a great understanding of the needs of that job. However, it would be extremely helpful if those officers were medically trained.
In many instances, when asylum seekers and others reach Heathrow they can walk straight into the community with any kind of illness, unless they seek medical attention. Unless an immigration officer feels that someone needs such a medical examination, he is unable to intervene. To my knowledge, no immigration officer at Heathrow is medically qualified. The ports of entry should be better manned and in some instances medical advice should be on hand so that certain people have a medical examination before they are allowed into the community. That would benefit not only the individual, but the community in which he intends to live.
Hon. Members on both sides have argued that the processing of applications takes an awfully long time. The present problems may be a precise result of that delay. In the past, however, insufficient priority has been given to processing such applications. It is ridiculous that people wait up to three years until a decision is reached.
In some instances an applicaton may be deemed to be bogus after a two-year delay. However, because the individual has settled here the Government say that they cannot send that person back.
If an application is processed quickly and is found to be bogus, the person concerned is sent back to his country of origin. However, if that application process takes a long time, it is felt that one cannot upset that person's lifestyle—he may be married—and he is allowed to stay. That is nonsense.
There is a suspicion—no more than that—of which I have no clear evidence, that blanket decisions are taken on some applications. I accept that individual cases are studied carefully, but Sikhs from the Punjab think that the Home Office department in Croydon does not believe any Sikh from the Punjab who claims political asylum. It appears that, because we are great friends with the Indian Government and the Indian community, and because they tell us that there is no political persecution in the Punjab,

we must accept that. However, I and others find it difficult to accept that, but I repeat that I have no hard evidence to substantiate my claim.
Tough action is needed. People seem to forget that Britain is a small island with limited resources of all kinds. Bogus applicants offend ethnic minorities as much as anyone else. Sikhs in my constituency are totally opposed to the so-called immigration advisers who extract large amounts of money from would-be applicants. Many of those applicants do not understand the system and they are misled about their applications. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should consider introducing a law to make the exploitation of those weak and innocent people—many cannot speak the language—a criminal offence. Such exploitation has been widespread for too long.
We must accept that the bogus traveller—that is the best title to give to such a person—is seeking no more than a better life. At times perhaps that is sought at someone else's expense. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) that all such people are middle class and able to make a contribution to our society. Many asylum seekers are middle class, but one need only visit Brick lane to see Bangladeshi people who are suffering a great deal because they are poor. They cannot speak the language, so they cannot get work and they need help.
When we allow people into the country, be they middle class or poor, we must not run away with the idea of helping them. If such people are not genuine asylum seekers we must take action to protect the rest of the community, including the ethnic minorities, from them.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the pressures on our social services and educational and housing provision. The current employment situation is not conducive to allowing in more people to seek work. Often there is no such work to be had, but if there is, the asylum seekers should not take it at the expense of people already here.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that problems have been associated with unemployment, bad housing and lack of social services for far longer than before any immigrant entered this country. One cannot accredit those problems to immigration.

Mr. Dicks: It was a mistake to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I accept that there have always been some problems, but if one keeps filling the pot with water it will overflow. Given the current circumstances and strains, we cannot afford to let anyone else into the country.
The British people are not prepared to be conned by the bogus political asylum seeker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said, Britain is not a soft touch. We will help those that we have to help legally, or perhaps those whom people want to help, but we will not have foisted upon us those who come here for a good time and a good life. They seek to come here because it is a nice place.
I welcome the Bill, but I do not believe it goes far enough. Applications for asylum should not be accepted from nationals of certain countries. Only last week my right hon. Friend said that people had sought asylum from Canada. How can anyone be politically persecuted in Canada? How can people be politically persecuted in America or in many western European countries? We must


start to define where we expect genuine refugees to come from. If we did that, we could probably reduce the number of applications by about 75 per cent. overnight.
If someone arrives here from Canada, how can we say that we will consider properly and carefully his application for political asylum? That person's backside should be kicked and he should be put on the first Air Canada flight home.
I am concerned about clause 3 and its effect on local authority housing. Why is it that bogus applicants, and even genuine asylum seekers, are given housing when they claim to have no alternative accommodation? How can we test the authenticity of their claim that their homelessness was not self-inflicted? My local authority has had to cope with that problem for many years, as I did when I was housing chairman of my local authority.
Unless we send someone back to his country of origin, it is almost impossible to test the authenticity of the statements that he makes. My local authority has a great many people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which costs the local poll tax payer a great deal. I believe that it is nonsense that we should give such asylum seekers any form of accommodation. The possibility of getting that accommodation encourages many refugees to come here in the first place.

Mr. Madden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dicks: No, I shall not give way.
The other subject that I wish to mention is the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. It is ludicrous that the Government should say that airlines and other carriers should be punished for doing something that is not their job. They are not immigration officials. They have people at airports to check in passengers and to push them through. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commented on people who arrive here having torn up or got rid of their documents on the aeroplane. It is interesting that, in sush cases, the Government still fine the airline concerned and expect it to pay. That seems to be wrong. There are 77 airlines at Heathrow and the Government expect them to act as immigration officials to ensure that people arrive with the right documentation. In the past, people have destroyed their documents on aeroplanes and in one case someone came with an outdated passport. Anyone could make that mistake in the urgency of a business flight, yet the airline concerned must pay the Government for that. That seems crazy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield may have had a point when he said—it was a tough line to take—that all admissions into this country should be suspended until we have caught up, and then we could reduce the waiting period to six weeks.
If the Labour party, the churches, the Hampstead white wine whingers and the bleeding hearts all oppose the Bill, it must be right. After all, the majority of ordinary, decent working class people support it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I listened with great fascination to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), thinking that he might take this opportunity to tell the House about his relationship with Professor Bedi, who is now awaiting trial in Brixton prison. I thought that he would explain why, although he legitimately supports the cause of human rights of the Sikh

people, he has made so many abusive remarks about Afro-Caribbean and West Indian people in the past, especially in an interview in the Tatler in 1989.
The debate is being held against the background of the most appalling racism, promoted by the popular press, some Conservative Members and especially the Government. For example, today's Daily Mail decided to have on its front page—coincidence I am certain—to go with the Bill:
Cheating Refugee Rang Up £117,000 Phone Bill".
I have no idea of the circumstances connected with that but it has nothing to do with whether someone may be an asylum seeker. The Daily Mail, the Sun and many other such papers have contained a series of unpleasant, vituperative stories against individuals in the past few months. They have sought to damage the interests of people legitimately seeking political asylum, having fled from oppression, who if they returned to their own countries would face further oppression and possibly death.
A few days ago, we saw the appalling spectacle on television of Vietnamese asylum seekers being dragged forcibly on to a plane to be sent back to Vietnam, a very poor country that has suffered economic embargos since 1976, which have caused great poverty there. The embargos were supported by the United States and this country. I fear, as do many others, that the start of the rot was the forced repatriation of the Vietnamese from Hong Kong.
Not so many years ago, a terrified young Kurdish man from Turkey sought asylum in this country. Despite all the entreaties that we could mount, including substantial medical evidence, the Home Office decided—the matter went to ministerial level—that he must return to Turkey. He could not face that prospect and took his own life by covering himself in petrol and setting himself alight. Siho lyuguven died. Fortunately, his family was able to come here later and I am pleased to say that they now live here safely. However, they have never forgiven or forgotten what happened.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) said in her excellent contribution, the degree of racism and racist violence on the rise in Europe must be dealt with. It cannot be dealt with by appeasement or by saying that those people have a legitimate point and that is why they are burning mosques in France and Nazi gangs are attacking migrant workers in Germany. It must be totally condemned, because anything less encourages the further rise of fascism. The slightest understanding of the history of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s shows that.
I want the House to consider the circumstances under which people seek political asylum. It is now part of the history of this country that many people came here to try to avoid the holocaust that Nazi Germany became. Unfortunately, many did not reach this country, the United States, Canada or any other safe country but ended up in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Dachau because they were denied the right to asylum. I know of people who have fled the most awful oppression in other countries in later fascist regimes, such as that of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, which killed so many. Many succeeded in gaining political asylum, but unfortunately not everyone. Now, as democracy is being reborn in Chile, the unmarked graves are being uncovered, the secret prisons are being discovered and the names of the missing are at last being revealed. If anyone believes for a moment that


we should forget about the cause of asylum seekers, I ask them to read some of the evidence of people who fled from Chile, El Salvador, Burma and so many other places where they could not cope with the oppression against them.
It is not easy for people to leave their own country, possibly never to return. Such a decision is not taken lightly. It is a sense of defeat and having to start over again. This country has not faced such a decision in the past 300 or 400 years and I hope that we never shall. But we should understand those who face such oppression and recognise that, in framing legislation, we should not introduce the remotest chance of anyone being wrongly returned. If they are, in many cases it means certain death for them.
The concept of a safe third country was mentioned so glibly by the Minister. He should think for a moment what that means. Is he saying that France, Germany or the United States are automatically safe? They are not. Is someone who has moved to Louisiana safe from the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke? Is a Moroccan asylum seeker safe in the suburbs of Paris? Is a Vietnamese migrant worker safe living in Leipzig with Nazi gangs going around? The Home Secretary should think much more carefully about the concept of a safe third country.
We should also think about the problems of the world as a whole, which cause mass migration in the first place. People do not lightly take the decision to migrate. The poverty that is created in some African countries by a combination of the debt crisis, poor harvests and droughts forces people to seek survival somewhere else. Indeed, Irish people have sought survival elsewhere, and people often left this country because they did not wish to stay in the slums of London, Birmingham or Liverpool but sought a better life in Australia or elsewhere. We should not be quite so narrow-minded, blinkered and xenophobic about the rest of the world.
The House has not had a good record in the past years. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 was an abominable piece of legislation, privatising immigration and putting it in the hands of aircraft and shipping companies, encouraging the use of bogus identity documents and, in many cases, making it impossible for legitimate asylum seekers to leave their own countries. People living under oppression cannot go to the British embassy and seek an entry clearance document, present it to an airline office, take a plane to this country and then seek political asylum. The world is not like that. The British embassy may be observed by the secret police, as may the airline office and many other places. We should think more carefully about the effects of the legislation.
We should consider the psychological condition in which people arrive. I know people who were prisoners of war in Japanese camps during the second world war and who, even now, find it hard to talk about the abuse that they suffered. I was talking to an old man in my constituency only last week. He found it hard to describe to me the abominable way in which he was treated in a prisoner of war camp. The same is true of victims of the holocaust who were placed in concentration camps. People who have been in prison in Zaire, Somalia and many other places find it hard, after the long, arduous and frightening experience of travelling abroad to seek asylum, to talk instantly about everything that happened.
The excellent organisation, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, collected evidence showing the psychological condition in which people arrive in this country. The procedure proposed—the fast track, the instant decision, the lack of proper appeal—continually works against those people. It is hard for people fleeing from oppression to explain everything that has happened. They have to reveal all, and if something goes wrong how are they to know that all that information will not be handed back to the secret police from whom they are trying to escape by seeking asylum?
I hope that the House will reject the Bill, but I fear that it will not. We shall fight it in Committee, and I hope that there will be a campaign in this country against the Bill, the xenophobia that it perpetrates and the principles behind it which are so wrong.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The Bill must be one of the most sensitive to come before the House for many years. It affects people and this country's reputation. We have given asylum to political refugees over many centuries: the Huguenots, the Jews from eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the century, continental Europeans during the last war—including my father—and many others. This country has a proud record to uphold.
In this day and age, continuing problems around the world throw up refugees. One such problem is particularly close to home for many of my Gravesham constituents. My constituency includes a large community of Sikhs from the Punjab in India. I do not need to detain the House with a contemporary history of that sad state. Grievances against the federal Government of the republic of India go back to the time of independence,when many Sikhs felt that Nehru and his Congress party reneged on solemn undertakings.
Since then, relations between the Sikhs of Punjab and the federal Government have been poor and there has been an escalating round of rebellion and repression. The conflict, highlighted by the sacking of the Golden temple at Amritsar, has thrown up refugees fleeing from the conflict in fear of their lives. But those represent a comparatively small number, and we must continue our tradition of granting political asylum. The Bill provides a framework within which to do so.
Race relations in this country are good. Gravesend and Northfleet contain 7,000 Sikh residents who live in the local community in peace, a condition of which I am proud. They can hold their religious processions to celebrate their Baisakhi festival without disturbances. The National Front has declined into oblivion.
However, there are immense pressures on this country from economic migrants. I believe that our tight immigration laws provide a safeguard for British residents against overpopulation, and are a major cause in avoiding racist unrest. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we have only to contrast our recent experience with that of France and Germany—the French action against north African immigrants and the way that the Germans treated eastern European and third-world immigrants. The way that neo-fascist mobs smashed up hostels in Germany is a dire warning to us to heed the pressures.
Despite the political claims of Opposition Members, this is a wonderful and prosperous country in which to bring up a family. Millions of people in the less-well-off


parts of the world would migrate here on precisely those economic grounds. Given the immense pressure caused by economic migrants, it is natural that loopholes and weak points in our immigration law have been sought out. Application procedures for asylum have proved a major weak point. Only last year, some Sikh constituents came to tell me of that very problem, which shows that the Bill is somewhat overdue.
Under the guidance of paid Mr. Fixits, the political asylum applicants have begun to abuse the system on a grand scale. There have also been instances of fraudulent multiple applications. My right hon. Friend cited the case in Gravesend of 47 applications being received from just one address. The measures in the Bill will allow us to investigate the veracity of those applications.
My right hon. Friend said that, only three years ago, applications numbered 5,000 per year, of which only 25 per cent. proved genuine. Since then, applications have vastly escalated and clogged up the system, causing delays of up to two years. There are now 60,000 outstanding applications. Why? Have human rights around the world deteriorated so sharply while dictatorships have tumbled? No, it is merely that thousands of people are attempting to charge through the loophole in our immigration controls.
I know of many cases in Gravesend. People come to Britain to visit relatives, or as tourists or students, on six-month visas. At the end of that period, they suddenly receive letters from home telling them that their return would imperil their lives because of their political views, so they apply for political asylum which gives them two more years in Britain. Most of the applications are turned down, as the claimants are identified as economic migrants. However, by that time they may well have married and have British-born children.
Some 25 per cent. of applicants are identified as political refugees, and a further 60 per cent. are granted exceptional leave to remain on compassionate grounds. The remaining 15 per cent. of applicants appeal, and months, if not years, ensue. At the end of that period, the applicants succeed or are granted exceptional lease to remain on compassionate grounds. The few unsuccessful applicants frequently embark on an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That shows that, if skilfully handled, applications for political asylum are a one-way bet to overcome our immigration laws. Ministers are right to act on grounds of equity.
Equity must be given not only to the British people but also to those such as my Sikh constituents. We should not overlook what happens to applicants while they are waiting. Some of them occupy council housing at the expense of local people who are in housing need. Many of them take low-paid jobs in the local labouring market, thus forcing down wages at the expense of my local Sikh residents.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making a case for the minimum wage.

Mr. Arnold: Opposition Members may laugh and jeer, but labourers in the Sikh community in my constituency do not welcome cheats who force down their pay. Not only do my Sikh constituents resent such people, but such activities dent their belief in British justice and fair play. The Sikhs in Gravesend and Northfleet have accepted the need for tight immigration rules, and they resent what is, in effect, queue jumping.
The Bill deals with cheats, who cheat my constituents—native Britons and Sikhs. Screams of racism from Opposition Members show just how far they are from understanding the views of their ethnic minority communities. The Bill will speed up procedures, help the real political asylum seekers to obtain approval for their application, limit the scope for Mr. Fixits who batten expensively on human misery, and restore justice and equity. It will close a vast loophole, and it certainly has my support.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Exactly four years ago, in November 1987, the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, introduced an Immigration Bill saying that it was being introduced, rather like this measure, to provide better customer service. He said that the procedures under the Bill would mean that people would be able to obtain a better service from the immigration and nationality department. In exactly the same way, the Government hope that this measure will mean that applications will be dealt with swiftly and, in their words, bogus applications will be prevented.
We are dealing not with bogus asylum seekers, however, but with a bogus Home Secretary who seems to think that he is in charge of immigration policy. Judging by the way in which he presented this measure to the House, it is clear that he has no understanding of the misery and anxiety caused to hundreds of thousands of people by the operation of the Government's immigration policy. The Bill will make matters worse, not better.
As the House knows, I serve on the Home Affairs Select Committee which in 1988 published a report severely critical of the Government. The Committee discovered that there were more than 250,000 unopened letters at Lunar house in Croydon, and it described the manner in which Home Office Ministers handled the immigration and nationality department as scandalous. Certain targets were set by Ministers, targets to do with naturalisation and applications. Today, a person who applies in this country for naturalisation and who has already waited five years to make an application will have to wait a further three years for his or her application to be dealt with.
That is the problem at the heart of this legislation: the need to provide more resources. The Government's failure to provide them has meant that outstanding applications for political asylum have not been dealt with more speedily. The way to solve that problem is not to pass a measure that has been condemned by every reasonable and right-thinking group in this country. It is to pass legislation that will have a positive effect on the situation.
This legislation is wholly unnecessary. If proper resources had been deployed to deal quickly with the problems at Lunar house and with the applications for political asylum, we would not need to be debating this Bill today.
If the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is honest, he will bear testament to the fact that, if he writes to the immigration department about a political asylum case, it will take many months for that case to be dealt with. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us exactly how long it takes for a political asylum case to be dealt with. If he claims that it takes a long time because there are so many applications, that too is his fault. He is charged by Parliament with dealing with these matters, and he has


failed, as have successive Home Secretaries in the past 12 years. They have not provided the extra staff needed at Lunar house.
This is why so many critical reports have been published by the Select Committee and why so many independent studies by organisations such as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants have condemned the Government's management of the service. The customer service provided by the Home Office in respect of applications for immigration or political asylum is the worst provided by any Government Department. If we applied the Prime Minister's citizens charter to the way in which the immigration service operates in Lunar House, the charter would fall to pieces.
The Home Secretary today tried to link immigration to race relations. I came to this country when I was nine years old. My family came from Aden in south Arabia, although we were of Indian origin. My parents chose to come here because they believed that this was a stable country and because they wanted the best possible education for their children. They exercised the rights to which they were then entitled to bring us to this country.
When we left Aden, people were being blown up in cars and in the buildings in which we lived and visited people. The situation was dreadful. So we arrived and settled in this country. In 1968, Enoch Powell made his speech predicting that rivers of blood would flow through the cities of Leicester, Bradford, Manchester and London by 1990–91. But the fact that we have had good order in our inner cities has been due to the good work done by members of both communities in those cities. It has nothing to do with the Government's immigration policy.
Race relations are in no way linked to the Immigration Act 1971 or the British Nationality Act 1981 or the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987—or this measure. Relations are good because people of good will have decided together that there should be no disorder, and Powell's prophecy has been shown to be hopelessly wrong.
Those who try to play on the prejudices and fears of people of any colour will be rightly condemned by all right-thinking people. If the Government believe that passing this legislation will in some way help race relations in this country, they are hopelessly wrong.
I do not believe that the amount of money spent on legal aid—we heard earlier that it is about £2·6 million—is a great deal. I should like to examine the way in which legal aid is dispensed among the agencies that perform immigration work. If there are solicitors who take green form and legal aid work but who do not do a proper job, they should be rooted out. I am prepared to look carefully at the arrangements in our cities: they should suit local needs.
There may be a strong case for providing an even bigger grant for UKIAS, which is already stretched—not as a means of taking legal aid from other organisations but as a way to give the service more money with which to set up branches in different parts of the country. I know that the citizens of Leicester would welcome the establishment of a UKIAS branch there, because they know it is a good organisation. It does good work, but it does not want to

take all the money provided by the Government if that means that other agencies that have built up expertise in immigration legislation will suffer.
I, and other hon. Members, and representatives of the carriers and one of the aircraft companies, Air India, met the Minister to discuss the results of the carriers' liability Act. The Minister was rightly condemned for failing to take the carriers' views into consideration. They told him that their check-in staff could not become immigration officers.
In the middle of the meeting, the Under-Secretary produced two identical-looking pieces of paper. One was a genuine passport, the other a forgery. He asked us to examine this example of a forgery. I ask hon. Members to imagine turning up to check in for a flight and boarding an aircraft where immigration officers check the traveller's passport against samples supplied by the Home Office. The Home Office says that it will provide more training, but the carriers want no part of that because they do not want to be immigration officers. They lack the expertise and the inclination to do that work.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman go on to recount what else happened at that meeting? I made it perfectly clear that only forgeries that could be identified by a reasonably competent member of an airline's staff would give rise to fines. If there was disagreement, the airline would be expected to appeal to the Home Office, which would adjudicate the matter. I invited the carriers to bring me specific cases. They may have put some in the post to me, but they have not yet arrived on my desk.

Mr. Vaz: They will supply examples for the Minister, and they will say, as I do, that he must think again about the carriers' liability Act. I also urge and beg the Government to think again about this Bill.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak about the Bill. Over the years I have gained considerable experience of both ends of this internationally increasing problem. Far from what has been suggested—that the problem is becoming less serious—there may be 17 million refugees worldwide, but there are up to 30 million displaced persons who are not classified as refugees. The suggestion that the problem is decreasing internationally cannot be supported.
I have been chairman for many years of the African committee of the British Refugee Council whose helpful work has been praised by the Minister. I have also travelled widely to many countries in Africa and south-east Asia with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The regimes in those countries are such that they create a demand for asylum.
The majority of the people who are currently displaced are likely to be neither political refugees, as strictly defined by the 1951 convention, nor economic migrants—people who seek to move only for personal betterment—about whom there has been much debate. Many of the people are not targeted for persecution, but they have good reason to believe that they will be in danger if they remain in their countries of origin. That is far more relevant to the present international situation than a division between economic migrants and political refugees.
Anyone who has seen the camps in Mozambique, which have been mentioned in the debate, and heard about the


many millions of people who have fled from that country because of the activities of Renamo would not say that those people have fled for reasons of economic betterment. Some hon. Members spoke about bogus applications. A dispassionate analysis of the situation in Africa, which I know best, will show a clear relationship between war, civil war and breakdown of countries and regimes and the number of migrants who seek access to other countries. Some 60 per cent. of applications for asylum in this country this year were from Africa. They come from countries in Africa which I shall list in order of size. They are Zaire, Angola, Ghana, Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda, Togo and the Sudan. For some reason or other those countries either have civil war or a totally disruptive national situation which forces people out.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that that says something about the utter incompetence of the regimes that run those countries? We are constantly being told that we have to bale them out. Is it not time that they put their house in order?

Mr. Lester: I am discussing the current situation. As some hon. Members have said, terrible regimes in Germany and many other countries have caused people to flee. The greatest problem at the moment is in Africa.
As I have said, I am chairman of the Africa committee of the British Refugee Council. I listened with interest to the speeches by the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey).
No one supports bogus applications, but the vast majority of applicants are well motivated and qualified. We know from the training they have received that they are anxious to get into work and not to make multiple claims. Not all of them seek permanent settlement here. I have had to deal with Uganda for many years. That country has had regimes under Amin and Obote and now that country has the Museveni Government. One sees the refugees change depending on the nature of the tribal leader and the persecution. The happiest days have occurred when there was an opportunity to go home. People returned when human rights were established and they felt safe. We must look more dispassionately at the problem rather than engage in some of the lurid language that we have heard in the debate.
During the Iraq-Iran war many of the students at Nottingham's very good university applied for exceptional leave to remain. They had worked and studied together in this country and the last thing that they wanted to do was to return home and be recruited to fight each other in a war with which they did not agree. Many of the 50,000 current applicants are in such categories.
Economic migration has been mentioned. It is likely that many of those who buy false documents can afford to do so. They are not in countries suffering from civil war and they seek economic betterment in more affluent countries. One can foresee that happening in Vietnam. As a result of the war there, Vietnamese people went to affluent countries such as Australia and places such as California. They write to people in Vietnam living in abject poverty telling of the lifestyle that they enjoy, and that is a clear incentive for people to get into a boat and seek a better life. Many of us are aware of the consequences of that, and, in spite of what the Opposition say about the return of people to Vietnam, no country is prepared to

take people from Vietnam who cannot be screened as refugees. It is hard enough to get those who have been screened accepted by other countries, never mind the majority of those people.
I agree with the Home Secretary about the prospects for eastern Europe. In Russia I have heard it said that 7 million potential refugees could leave what used to be the Soviet Union—if they get the opportunity. There should be no confusion about what we seek to do. The proposed measures must be transparently fair. We all agree that we need speedier procedures, but we must recognise the nature of the trauma suffered by those who leave familiar landscapes and end up at Heathrow and Dover.
I am sorry that the Bill has given rise to such intense political differences. I had hoped that we could deal with such legislation impartially. The legislation should not be linked to nascent immigration fears, and I hope that in Committee we shall seek a wider consensus with those who have been most critical of the Bill and who have the most contact with asylum seekers.
I hope that we can solve the problem of fingerprinting. It is one thing to fingerprint people who have no evidence of their identity, but it should not apply to all people seeking asylum. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) about the need to give sympathetic advice to people who arrive in this country. Somebody should be there to guide them and prevent them from making embarrassing statements or putting a foot wrong, because such actions could be used against them.
During the debate on the Gracious Speech I spoke about this problem. I recognised that we need to expand our foreign service in the countries from which immigrants are likely to come. Those of us who know our foreign service appreciate that in almost every country it knows the problems, the dissidents and the opposition. Those of us who have travelled in eastern Europe have had meals with people who used to be dissidents but are now running their countries. For example, I remember the President of Czechoslovakia coming straight from his boilerhouse as a member of Charter 77 to have a meal with us. Our foreign service knows what is happening and can be helpful in ensuring that those who need asylum are guided.
We need to move faster than we have done. For example, the time to move on Yugoslavia was when Milosevic started his campaign of hate in 1987. It is now too late to deal with the consequences of that. I got the intimation from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he agrees that we should also devote as much energy and funds to tackling the political and economic catastrophes that cause people to flee from their homes and to dealing with the imbalances in living standards from which the majority of people on this globe suffer. We should not rely on a system of control to stem the potential tide.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to start at 9.20. I hope that the three hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye will agree to divide the time between them. That would give them about six minutes each.

Mr. Elliot Morley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who made a reasonable and considered speech—one of the few such speeches from Conservative Benches. I agree that the level of abuse of the system by asylum seekers is debatable. Even the Government's figures show that those granted leave to remain and those allowed to stay because of exceptional circumstances account for nearly 90 per cent. of the applications last year. Therefore, only 10 per cent. were considered unreasonable, and that is not a large proportion.
I do not deny that there are some fraudulent applications that are without merit, and nobody will defend those who apply on bogus grounds. We all agree that, even though there is so much intimidation and fear and such wretched conditions around the world, there must be priorities to ensure that those who apply to come here do so because they are genuinely in danger.
It is worth reminding the House that we have a responsibility. Who sold these countries the weapons that they are using to tear themselves apart? Who burdened developing countries with huge and crippling debts that are causing massive economic problems and adding to the misery and difficulties that they face?
Only a tiny minority of those seeking asylum want council houses and income support. Many of those who seek asylum—I have experience of this in my constituency—do so, first, because they have a great respect for our record of caring for people in danger and seeking asylum and, more importantly, because in many cases their families are already living here. They know that jobs and accommodation can be found with their families, so they will not be a burden on the country.
The less reputable papers have been trying to blow up the problem of demands for council houses. This causes resentment because there is not enough council housing to go round. There is a deepening housing crisis and, even if not a single applicant were granted asylum, that would not detract from that crisis, which is a result of the failure of the Government's housing policy.
For genuine applicants, I am worried by the changes that the Bill will make to such factors as legal aid. For example, the proposal to abolish the green form system, which enabled those seeking legal advice to go to specialist solicitors, both locally and nationally, will make it more difficult for applicants to obtain such advice. In my area, the Humberside law centre deals with many such cases and the nearest advisory centre is that at the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service office in Leeds. I have the greatest respect for UKIAS, which does a good job and works hard. It is to its credit that it has turned down the bribes and temptation to take extra resources for becoming the sole advisory centre for asylum cases. It knows that in many cases that would cause problems for those seeking advice.
I am also concerned about the way that people arriving here with forged documents will be treated. I accept that some people try to enter the country on bogus grounds, and that unscrupulous individuals may make a living from selling forged documents and encouraging that trade. The fact remains, however, that often the only opportunity available to someone who is living in fear of persecution and wishes to leave his country is provided by the sale of such documents. A person who is in fear of his life, or who

faces the threat of gaol or the persecution of his family, can hardly go down to the local consulate, or the relevant office, to obtain proper documentation. Such action would undermine his position and, indeed, put him in considerable jeopardy.
The pressure on this country may be increased, given the break-up of the system in eastern Europe and the civil unrest in such nations as Yugoslavia. Many of my constituents, however, have relatives in eastern Europe. One has a mother living in Dubrovnik, and he and his wife are very concerned about her treatment and what will happen to her. It might be impossible for her to obtain the necessary travel documents to enable her to escape from the bloodshed, the chaos and the breakdown of law and order that have been caused by the rise of extremist nationalism—which, in many countries, poses a greater threat than the communism that it has replaced.
There is no need for the Bill, and I am surprised that the Government are presenting it at this stage—although many people have their suspicions about the reason. One problem with the handling of asylum applications has been delay, but that problem could be solved if the immigration service were reorganised so that applications could be dealt with more quickly and efficiently. Dare I add that more staff should be employed?
I do not feel that legislation that could jeopardise the lives of genuine asylum seekers can make up for the incompetence, delay, underfunding and general mismanagement from which the immigration service currently suffers. It has brought many problems on its own head, and it will not be improved by such restrictive and ill-thought-out legislation.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for curtailing his remarks. Unfortunately, one of the problems of speaking at the end of a debate is that everyone else has already grabbed one's best lines.
I understand and approve of the principles behind the Bill. Without doubt, immigration procedures are abused, as is illustrated by a letter from a firm of letting agents in my constituency:
I have in mind the case of refugees in distress in search of accommodation. In this instance accommodation was provided on a short term tenancy for six months. At the end of this period the refugees no longer were interested in alternative accommodation but demanded eviction notice for the purpose of obtaining a council house on the basis of strict court procedure and its effects … What can be observed is that some refugees use the strict procedures for their own purpose which is an abuse of the system and the system working as a social mechanism obliges.
Is this country to accept asylum seekers at all, however? We are signatories to the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, and we have a long and proud history of offering hospitality to those who are fleeing from persecution. The answer to my rhetorical question is yes; that being so, however, we must ensure that a proper legal framework exists to deal with such people. Nor must we assume that they are conversant with that framework. It exists to protect them, but they may not be aware of its existence. They must be made aware of it, and proper legal advice must be available to them so that they can interpret it.
Early-day motion 130, in my name and in those of other right hon. and hon. Members, is a cross-party motion


expressing considerable concern about the proposed withdrawal of legal aid for immigration and asylum advice. In the words of the Bar Council of England and Wales, in its paper, "Proposals for Asylum Seekers":
it is essential that the advice of an independent expert solicitor should be available to those seeking asylum. Such assistance under our system of law is available to all whose means are such that they cannot afford to pay for legal services and who face serious penalties as a result of legal procedures. There can be no excuse for seeking to remove this elementary protection from this particularly vulnerable class and the Bar objects in the strongest possible terms to the arbitrary proposal which was made by the Government without any prior consultation that legal aid should be withdrawn … The need for legal aid is obvious and it is further a matter of regret that the Government is seeking to achieve the removal of legal aid not in the new statute itself but by way of amending regulations. It is to be hoped that this device will not preclude debate in both Houses of Parliament on this important issue.
The matter is indeed being well debated.
On fingerprinting, I fully understand the Government's intention to prevent multiple and fraudulent applications, but I have some reservations. There appear to be no safeguards in the Bill covering the following matters: first, the release of the information to third parties, possibly even Governments in the asylum seekers' own countries; and, secondly, the consent of the asylum seeker to the release of the information.
I shall go straight to the heart of the question raised by clause 5—is three days long enough to make an application for leave to appeal? Three days is a lot better than two days, but even three days is not quite long enough.
I have reservations, too, about the apparent fact that the immigration officer or the Secretary of State shall send the special adjudicator the application, together with the notes of interview, and so on, whereas the applicant has no right to send any such papers. As Amnesty International puts it:
When determining an application for leave to appeal the Special Adjudicator will have before him or her only the Home Office's notice of refusal together with 'the notes of interview and any documents upon which reliance was placed in reaching the decision [to refuse asylum]'.
I have one or two final comments on the Home Office rules under the heading, "Consideration of Cases", whereby
the Secretary of State will have regard to the following matters".
I shall pick out two of those matters. The first is:
that the applicant has failed to apply forthwith upon arrival in the United Kingdom, unless the application is founded on events which have taken place since his arrival in the United Kingdom.
The asylum seeker may not be aware of the existence of what will become the Asylum Act 1992, or of the existence of the Home Office rules—or even the Home Office.
The second consideration is:
that the applicant has failed to make a prompt or full disclosure of material factors, either orally or in writing or otherwise to assist the Secretary of State to the full in establishing the facts of the case.
The applicant may not be aware of the various processes involved in seeking asylum.
There must be guarantees of competence, independence and impartiality. Apart front those few reservations, I am delighted that the Government are committed to the convention on refugees, and I fully accept their wish to do justice to genuine asylum seekers.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for kindly curtailing their speeches to allow me to participate in the debate.
In a sense, this is a revisitation of the subject on which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I sparred on 8 May when he presented his Bill on asylum seekers.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is right to resist any notion that this is a racist Bill. That accusation, made by the Labour party, reflects that party's paranoia about any discussion of asylum seekers or immigration. Such matters are important to our constituents and they should be discussed as dispassionately as possible. The Opposition do not do themselves, or the interests of rational debate, a service by calling us all names.
The United Kingdom has a record on this matter of which it is right to be proud. It is absurd of the Opposition to suggest that we have not played our part in shouldering the burden of providing refuge for those who suffer persecution in their homeland. Let us take some examples. Since the war, we have taken in many thousands of people from eastern Europe, virtually all of whom have made enormous contributions to the life of our country. I have many Poles in my constituency—as, I suspect, have many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is right and proper that we should have taken them in. In the 1970s, we took in the Ugandan Asians. The Vietnamese boat people have been taken in. Most recently, the House resolved that 50,000 heads of household and their families should be admitted from Hong Kong. That is a very good record. Add to that the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants from the new Commonwealth and elsewhere, and I do not believe that anyone can hold a candle to our record in showing compassion and humanitarian concern for the victims of persecution.
Of course, people want to come to this country in ever-increasing numbers. We have had a splendid Conservative Government for 12 years. Every day, the United Kingdom becomes more attractive to hundreds of thousands of people who wish to make their way to these shores. How sensible of them: one cannot question their judgment. But the logic of the Labour party's position is that, if we must take in the victims of persecution, we must take them all in, and that is simply not a sensible or practical proposition. What distresses me—and, I suspect, some of my hon. Friends—is that Opposition Members do not criticise the regimes from which those people are being forced to flee. Indeed, Opposition Members nearly always request that we should grant further aid to those countries.
Labour Members and the Social Democrats refer solely to the obligations that we are said to have to migrants. There is no reference whatever in their speeches to the genuine and reasonable concerns of our fellow citizens—the electors and constituents to whom we are accountable. In my view, if ever the Labour party were returned to office, it would display the contempt for the fears of ordinary British people-including many migrants already here—that has been the hallmark of Labour Governments in the past.
I think that we all agree that good race relations depend on the tolerance of the indigenous population and on newcomers' willingness to adapt. Attempts to get us to


change our nursery rhymes and demands that we adjust our customs are not guaranteed to help. The fact that the Commission for Racial Equality has sought legal advice on its opposition to the Bill reinforces my conviction that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has it right. I only wish that he would add another clause seeking to abolish the CRE, as such a step would be widely welcomed throughout the country.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Disgraceful.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may think it disgraceful, but many people feel that the CRE does not help to maintain good race relations.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe mentioned the existing pressure on housing. I cannot understand how, having acknowledged that we have a housing problem, the hon. Gentleman can apparently be almost oblivious to the impact that the failure to tackle the problem of asylum seekers is likely to have on many communities in our country. I understand that each week something like 300 people from one country alone are admitted to certain parts of London at present. We must address the intolerable position facing housing officers when they try to house those people. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have done well to ensure that that point is encompassed in the Bill.
The Bill is fair and reasonable. It establishes a sensible framework for speedily processing the applications of asylum seekers. It addresses a serious problem honestly and squarely and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on introducing the Bill, notwithstanding the unwarranted accusations about his motives. He will have the support of the British people in introducing the Bill and I hope that people will have noticed that the intransigence of the Opposition means that the matter will not proceed as speedily as it should through the House.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) is an example of the many Conservative Members who seem to derive pleasure from deliberately confusing asylum with the more general issue of immigration. The House will have noted that the Home Secretary appeared to derive an unsavoury relish when he cited examples of what he referred to as bogus asylum applications. He appeared to derive pleasure from raising the spectre of millions of people threatening to come to this country. He did that tonight; he did it in his statement to the House on 2 July; and he did it when he spoke to the Tory party conference a few weeks ago.
All that is unfortunate because there are serious issues which must be addressed rationally. There is no doubt that the number of people seeking asylum in this country is rising. It is running at about 3,000 to 4,000 a month. There is no doubt that the number is likely to increase and that the existing system cannot cope. There is already a backlog of 60,000 applicants. The reasons for that are obvious. There continue to be civil wars and starvation in many parts of the world and that means that it is inevitable that people will try to move to countries where they might

better their lot. Among those people seeking to improve their economic, social and political circumstances, there are some people who are entitled to asylum.
Nothing in the Bill will stop the increase in applications. That should be made clear to those Conservative Members who spoke earlier this evening, but are no longer in the Chamber. We can do nothing about the increase in the number of applications. Instead, we should consider how we deal with those applications. Nothing in the Bill will stop the pressure to migrate from former USSR and eastern bloc countries, although we should get that into perspective. I believe that 175 applications have been received from the USSR this year. Although for the most part that pressure will be felt by Germany, France and Italy, that is clearly a problem for the European Community as a whole. That pressure will be resolved only by economic assistance to eastern Europe, to the former Soviet Union and to other parts of the world.
Reference has been made to the rise in racism, particularly on the continent. We should not pander to that racism. We should condemn it and remember that immigration is not the cause of racism. Immigration is simply an excuse for racism. If there was no immigration, those who propagate racist sentiments would find something else.
It is common ground that asylum claims take far too long to determine and in some cases that undoubtedly helps people who want to abuse the system. I agree that the procedures could be streamlined provided that there are safeguards. However, instead of that, the Government are proposing to remove some of the present safeguards.
It is also common ground between us that among those who apply for asylum are many who are not entitled to it, in some cases, despite their circumstances. The Home Secretary referred to the question of bogus refugees and no doubt the Under-Secretary of State will refer to it when he replies to the debate. It was referred to in the Home Office press notice issued last week which stated:
The myth is: most asylum claims are genuine, because nine out of ten are allowed to stay. The fact is: only a quarter are genuine refugees.
How on earth can the Department say that, because more than 90 per cent. of the people who apply for asylum receive asylum or exceptional leave to remain? Or are the Government saying that those who have exceptional leave to remain should not have received it? If that is so, why did they grant it in the first place?
What is a bogus refugee? Is it someone who has applied and been rejected? That is an important point, because the Government seem to suggest that, by definition, if one does not receive asylum, one must be bogus. I should have thought that a bogus refugee or a bogus asylum seeker is someone who knew all along that he had no chance and that his application was ill-founded. That does not seem to include the classification of people who were referred to by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who are probably not asylum seekers in the proper sense of the word, but, because of the difficult circumstances in their country, it makes it difficult to return them. Indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said as much on "Panorama" a couple of weeks ago when we both appeared on it. He must accept that, although many people do not obtain asylum, it would be wrong to characterise them as bogus. The term "bogus refugee" is


referred to time and again by Ministers to justify what they are proposing tonight and to encourage and cheer the crowds at the Tory party conference.
The question is, what system do we put in place to ensure that claims for asylum are properly dealt with in accordance with our international obligations? Such a system is possible, but the Government have not proposed it. Under the Government's proposals, there is a substantial risk that individuals will be returned to torture, or even death in some cases, because the Government's approach is simple and cynical—it is to make it more difficult to apply for asylum and far easier to reject claims without full and proper consideration.
The Home Secretary has repeated time and again that there is a new right of appeal before removal for all applicants refused asylum. He said that in his press release, he said it today, and he has said it on many occasions. That statement is simply not true. On 2 July, when the Home Secretary made his statement to the House heralding the Bill, he said that there would be a new fast-track system. We understood that it would apply only to some asylum seekers. It appears from the Bill that it applies to every asylum seeker, because all appeals would be handled in the same way.
At the moment, applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom have a right to appeal. Now no one will have a right to appeal. Instead, all applicants will have only the right to apply for leave to appeal, which is quite a different matter.
Under clause 4, if people appeal they risk losing their existing rights of limited stay under the Immigration Act. That is clearly a disincentive to apply. For example, I refer to students from Croatia who are currently in this country on study visas. They would have to weigh in the balance whether to apply for asylum—if they believe that, if they return to Yugoslavia or Croatia, they will have a genuine fear of persecution—in the certain knowledge that, I they lose that claim for asylum, they will lose also their right to remain in this country because of the way in which the Bill is phrased.
Applicants have two days to lodge an application for leave to appeal. That time limit expires on the day after posting. Knowing the postal service in some areas, that should certainly dispose of several claims without any examination.
In addition, the special adjudicator will have only the material that the Home Office wishes the special adjudicator to have. The initial interview that the asylum seeker gives is absolutely crucial. Those are the facts on which the adjudicator will base his decision, yet asylum seekers will not know what is in the initial statement because they will not have an opportunity to see what is being said about them. Immediately, the asylum seeker is at a disadvantage. He will not know what the case is against him—rather like the people who were detained by this country during the Gulf war. In addition to that, under schedule 2, the adjudicator must determine all other claims in respect of immigration matters that may be outstanding.
What does the adjudicator have to consider? That point is important in the light of what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attempted to establish in interventions during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The adjudicator has to establish whether the applicant has an "arguable claim" before he decides

whether the applicant will have leave to appeal. In deciding whether he has an "arguable claim", he has to look at everything that the Home Secretary is entitled to consider before deciding whether someone should be granted asylum. It is no use the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State shaking his head. That is what the Bill says. Therefore, in deciding whether there is an arguable claim, the special adjudicator has to look at the criteria set out in the draft immigration rules. He has to see whether the applicant failed to apply forthwith upon his arrival in the United Kingdom.
As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, there may be many reasons why the full facts were not disclosed. The applicant may have left a difficult situation. He may well be in a state of shock and there may be other good reaons why he did not place his full story before the immigration officer at his interview at Heathrow, Dover or any other port of entry.
An applicant could also be faulted on the ground that he or she failed to make a prompt and full disclosure of the material factors, but who is to judge what those material factors are? Even after that interview, the asylum seeker has no right to know what material factors the immigration officer considered important. This is where the relevance of obtaining proper legal advice from the start becomes important. If an individual has not been properly advised, he or she is in no position to judge what is a material factor that should be disclosed.
Similarly, if an applicant has destroyed, damaged or disposed of his passport or other documents, that will be held against him. What would the Government have said to a Jewish refugee fleeing from Nazi Germany who arrived in this country with forged documents? According to the Bill, that person should have had proper documents in the first place and, if approached by an SS officer, should have said, "Yes, I am fleeing from Nazi Germany." Clearly, that is nonsense. As some Conservative Members have said to their credit, many genuine asylum seekers coming to this country have had to destroy their documents to escape persecution.
The issue of whether, after lodging his claim, an applicant has undertaken activities in this country that are calculated to enhance his claim would also be considered. Again, who is to judge whether those activities were calculated to enhance the claim? Similarly, who is to judge whether the applicant could have moved to a safer area of his own country? Are we suggesting that someone who claims that he was persecuted in the northern part of Sri Lanka could have moved to the southern part? How can the immigration officer judge that? Immigration officers are not qualified to do so and do not have intimate knowledge of each and every country that produces asylum seekers.
Under the Bill, the scope for making mistakes—no matter how innocent—is widespread. It would be far better if the asylum seeker could be properly advised and knew exactly what was being said about him and what information was being given to the special adjudicator. That would help to ensure that we do not risk returning somebody to a country without a proper examination of his or her case.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has said, some of our greatest concern centres on the fact that the actions of other people, whether acting on behalf of the asylum seeker or not, will be taken into account when assessing the applicant's credibility. I hope that the


Minister will tell us what other branch of the law contains that feature. Under the law of this country, it is usually accepted that we are held responsible for the consequences of our own actions. It is completely novel to say that someone should be convicted or blamed for something that has been done by somebody else, even if that action is not supposed to be on the other person's behalf. That proposal is particularly objectionable and should be removed.
When we consider the position of the asylum seeker, it is essential that we realise that, unless he knows exactly what has been said against him and makes representations accordingly, he will be at a great disadvantage. He cannot make representations in the dark. He must be told what has been said against him, so that his case can be fairly and properly put. At the very least, an applicant should see the case against him. Better still, he should be allowed representation so that his case can be properly and rigorously examined. That would also serve to improve the quality of the administration and decision-making from the start.
he asylum seeker's difficulties start before the appeal stage has even been reached. We have talked much about the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and will be talking more about it in Committee when we debate increasing the fines. However, several points must be repeated now. First, the Act has not worked. More people are entering this country and having fines levied against them now than when the Act was introduced. If it was meant to act as a disincentive, it has not worked. It is a sledgehammer which has hurt innocent airlines. Fines have been imposed on people who were never intended to be the subject of such fines. I do not believe that the Government ever intended to penalise the airlines for bringing business men into this country whose passports expired just a week or two earlier, but that is what is happening. British Airways, a reputable airline and one of the world leaders, has been fined £6 million. Was that the Government's intention when they introduced the legislation? Fines amounting to over £33 million have been imposed since the Act was passed. It is not even an efficient system, because £16 million is uncollected. The legislation has not worked.
The Act discriminates against the genuine asylum seeker. Such an asylum seeker cannot obtain a visa for asylum. He certainly cannot go to the British embassy and throw himself on the mercy of its officials in the country in which he fears persecution.
Both Opposition and Conservative Members have said tonight that airline staff have in effect been made into immigration officers. They may be qualified to say whether someone has a valid ticket, but in most cases they are not qualified to judge whether the visa is correct or the passport is a valid document. The Government ought to reconsider the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. Of course, we all want to stop people who should not be carried into this country, but the Act simply does not work.
The Government should consider the commercial implications for Heathrow of clause 7. If we want to encourage growth in the number of passengers passing through Heathrow, is it wise to require transit passengers, who do not want to enter Britain, to have a visa? Surely,

if we want to build up Heathrow, that clause should be reconsidered. I should be interested to hear what the Department of Transport has to say about the matter, if, indeed, it is still in the business of promoting Heathrow.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's thesis that airlines should be allowed to build up their passenger numbers regardless of where people come from is interesting. If the Labour party were returned to power, would it repeal the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987? Would a Labour Government not impose any fines on airlines that brought in intending illegal immigrants?

Mr. Darling: The Act is in great need of overhaul because it is not working. I repeat that it seems ridiculous to discourage airlines from bringing people to Heathrow with a view to taking them elsewhere in Europe or the world. That would be the result of clause 7.
The proposal to withdraw legal aid and make UKIAS the sole provider of legal advice and assistance seems to fly in the face of the Government's philosophy. They tell us that they believe in freedom of choice. Yet they will deny people the right to choose what representation they have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, that applies to not only asylum seekers but those who seek advice on immigration matters.
The Government tell us that the private sector is efficient, yet they seek to remove the possibility of solicitors and counsel providing advice under the legal aid advice scheme. No saving is gained for the Treasury. It is clear from its letter to the Minister that UKIAS does not believe that it could provide the service that is currently provided. It is regrettable that the Under-Secretary of State saw fit to write to UKIAS threatening it that unless it accepted the Government's proposals there would be a question mark over the funding that it already receives.
The Government must answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. He said that the Commission for Racial Equality has written to the Government saying that there was a question mark over the proposal to withdraw legal aid in view of the Government's obligations under the Race Relations Act 1976.
On clause 3 and the proposals on housing, I shall content myself by saying that it is not enough simply to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to be housed. If we grant people leave to remain in Britain, they have to be housed somewhere. We should tackle that problem. The root cause of the problem, the resentment and the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is that there is not enough public low-cost housing. That problem was caused by deliberate Government policy throughout the term of their office. It is a major problem for the London boroughs in terms of both housing and education. The Government should consider the problem rather than simply making it more difficult for these people to be housed.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe made a good suggestion about fingerprinting. Where there is suspicion perhaps the proposal ought to be considered. As I understand it, only applicants from one or two countries are giving rise to a problem; it is not universal. Safeguards must be in place to ensure that the system is not abused and that the countries that people are fleeing from are not given information which would make their persecution more likely.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, following the detention of various Iraqi nationals during the Gulf war, I discovered that the names of all the detainees were passed to the Red Cross and thence to the Iraqi authorities, who now have a list of everyone that we detained who chose not to go back to Iraq. Clearly that puts them in great difficulties. The Government should think hard before they allow the development of a system whereby countries that we all accept have brutal regimes have a list of their nationals who chose not to return to the country because of the nature of the regime.
There is no dispute about the fact that there is a problem and that it needs to be dealt with. The dispute between us concerns the proposed solution, which we do not believe will be effective, workable or fair. The Government's position is simple and cynical and is designed to exclude as many as possible at the earliest opportunity. It is contrary to the United Nations convention. There is risk that genuine asylum seekers will be bundled out of the country to face torture or death. We cannot turn our backs on what is undoubtedly a serious and growing problem. The Government have failed to do it and are apparently content to wallow in rhetoric. That is regrettable and that is why we shall be voting for our amendment and opposing the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The debate on a range of issues that lie behind the Bill has been full, at times passionate and occasionally acrimonious. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his opening speech, asylum is a complex subject. The pressures that induce people to leave their country and seek it are varied. The motives for choosing a particular country—often on the other side of the world—in which to claim asylum are mixed.
In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), I do not believe that the motives of the majority of those who claim asylum are reprehensible. However, the claims of the majority of those seeking asylum here during the past few years—and of the cases that we have determined—were unfounded in United Nations convention terms. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and a number of other hon. Members asked me why so many have had exceptional leave to remain, as only 24 per cent. of the cases in the past few years have been found to be genuine asylum seekers in United Nations terms. The fact is that we give exceptional leave to remain because it would be inhumane to send some people, such as the Croatian that the hon. Member mentioned, back to their country at this time, even though they may not have made a claim of persecution. In some cases, because of our long waiting list, people have been here too long—they have married, put down roots and have children in school—and it would be unreasonable to send them back. I am afraid that I have to confess that we allow a substantial number of people to remain simply because we have not had the staff to pursue their claims to remain through the various hoops available to them.

Mr. Darling: The Government had an open door policy, then?

Mr. Lloyd: It may well be the case that we should have had more staff but I willingly accept that the tenfold

increase in the number arriving has overwhelmed our resources. I do not think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, his hon. Friends or the majority of my hon. Friends would say that the Government were wrong, rather than giving no status to people who have been in this country for a number of years, to have given them exceptional leave to remain. That is how that category is made up. They are not genuine asylum seekers, but a variety of different people with a variety of claims to be here and reasons why they are.

Mr. Darling: The Minister has made exactly the point that I was making—that, in effect, a tiny minority has claims that are unfounded and without merit. He rightly said that we grant exceptional leave to remain to a number of people if it would be unjust to return them, perhaps to a civil war or something like that. As I understand it, the Home Secretary has said that he means to cut down on exceptional need to remain. What will we do when someone misses out on asylum but clearly has a case, albeit one that falls short of asylum, which is not bogus?

Mr. Lloyd: Each case is considered on its merits. There are at least two categories. With the speedier decision-making that the extra staff make possible, in which the Bill assists, people will be able to have no said to them very properly.
Beyond all the rarefied discussion of these fundamental forces, beyond the political point scoring and the political footballs, many of which have been kicked around this evening, there remains the overwhelming problem of coping humanely and fairly with the constant flow of individual human beings—now 50,000 a year, which is 10 times more than three years ago. No responsible Government could ignore that growth. No responsible Opposition could, either—yet I have heard few thoughts from them tonight about how to deal with that effectively.
We cannot ignore that growth, if only because the machinery and procedures adequate to manage 5,000 are entirely inappropriate for 50,000 and more. Despite the hard words exchanged across the Chamber from time to time this evening, it is plain that there is complete agreement on both sides of the House that those who arrive here with a well-founded fear of persecution should find a safe haven. On this side of the House and, I suspect, on many parts of the Opposition Benches there is equal recognition, although unspoken, that those who do not have such a well-founded fear, some other compelling compassionate reason which justifies their remaining or another legitimate claim to stay, should return to their country.
If an asylum claim that is not justified under the United Nations convention is to be the means of obtaining settlement in the United Kingdom, we need at the very least to explain, particularly to the minority communities legitimately settled here, why their friends and relatives who would like to come and join them are not allowed to do so because they told the truth when they made their applications, whereas others who are prepared to make an unfounded asylum claim can remain indefinitely. There is no justice in that.
I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and it was plain that he did not understand the Bill. I had no idea whether he saw the


tenfold rise in numbers applying as a problem to be addressed and, if so, how he would deal with it. His was an exercise in misinformation and complacency.
The Bill and the rules that will accompany it are essentially practical. They aim to establish a working system that can cope with arrivals on the present scale. We need to be able to identify and give asylum promptly to those with genuine claims. It is plainly unfair if they are obliged, as at present, to live in uncertainty for many months or years. We need to be able to determine accurately and fairly those with unfounded claims. Unless there is a special compassionate feature, such as the one given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, we need to return them home before they have begun to establish themselves here, making their eventual removal more difficult for us and even more unwelcome for them.
There is no serious dissent from the general proposition that we should have a system which combines a thorough examination of all individual claims, a clear exposition of the criteria against which they are being assessed, all proper speed and then a clear decision, whether positive or negative, and an effective right of appeal before removal for those whose claims have been rejected. Obviously, there is room for debate about the means of achieving those objectives and how accommodating our criteria should be.
Because we want the debate to be a real one, we published with the Bill the draft immigration rules which will follow its successful passage, so those rules can be discussed at the same time as the Bill and, if and where necessary, improved. We have also published for consultation the draft asylum appeals procedure rules. The Lord Chancellor has made it clear on the front of that document that they have been issued before being finalised so as to facilitate discussion. I want to dwell upon the draft immigration rules because most hon. Members have mentioned them.
The draft rules make explicit the clear exposition of the criteria against which cases are assessed. These relate to matters of credibility. A case that is considered thoroughly is looked at in the round and all the relevant factors are taken into proper consideration. When it comes to deciding what affects credibility, the operative word is "may". If an applicant has a good explanation for his claim it may, far from harming him, enhance his credibility. There may be occasions when it is quite right or entirely understandable that an asylum applicant did not make his claim until he had been here for some time. For others, however, it will be plain that they made their asylum claim to extend their stay here only when they had failed to prolong it by other means.
I understand why hon. Members paused for thought when they first read the draft immigration rule relating to a person arriving with no papers. There could be a totally innocent reason why someone arrived with no documents. When papers are destroyed deliberately, however, as they are in half of the cases of those claiming asylum at the ports, apparently to conceal the identification of the claimants and where they come from, that must adversely affect their credibility—unless they have a convincing explanation. It will affect their credibility not least because

the United Nations enjoins asylum seekers to help the authorities by providing all the relevant information to assist in establishing their claim.

Mr. Darling: What is the objection to showing the asylum seeker the completed initial statement and the reasons for the refusal? At least he could then see what was said against him and, if necessary, make representations about that.

Mr. Lloyd: There is no objection, and that is exactly what we are doing. On refusal, the failed applicant will be given the reasons why and receive a copy of the papers that will go to the adjudicator. What the hon. Gentleman wants, he will get. Not everything is set down in the rules, but it is the practice to provide those papers. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to be disappointed.

Mr. Darling: The Minister is a reasonable man and he has shown even more reasonableness than I had expected. If he is now giving us a commitment that the reasons for a refusal will be made available to the applicant, that is welcome. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will confirm that that is the Government's intention.

Mr. Lloyd: It is our practice and also our intention.
Another rule that worried people on first reading, and I can understand why, is the rule relating to political activity in this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already dealt with that issue. I accept that political activity in this country could undermine credibility, but it might just confirm credibility. Given that the rule has caused so much concern, I will repeat our case. The operative word is "may". Political activity here would undermine the credibility of a claimant only if it was designed merely to enhance a claim or to construct one that did not exist. Those who have genuinely fled from persecution and who carry on normal, non-violent political activity and demonstration here have nothing to fear.
Paragraph 7 of the draft immigration rules relates to untruths by agents. That, too, has been raised many times tonight. Unless an applicant has a satisfactory explanation, his credibility will be reduced if untrue claims are made on his behalf by his agent or representative. That is the position now. Staff at the Home Office who give fair and full interviews to applicants must look at all matters which reflect on the claim being made and on the credibility of the individual. The only difference is that we are setting that fact out clearly in the rules so that people know.
Paragraph 8, which enables some applications to be considered in a group, was raised by several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Cases will almost always be considered individually. Paragraph 8 provides that, when an applicant is part of a group of individuals all making the same claim which is clearly unconnected with United Nations convention criteria, the group may be refused collectively. It deals with the occasional situation when a holiday party arrives on a charter flight and claims asylum en bloc. The rules make it clear that an individual who can show that his or her claim is distinguishable from the rest of the group must have it heard and he or she will be treated individually.
The procedure rules were also raised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The major purpose of the Bill is to extend appeal rights to all asylum seekers. There was no such universal right when the Labour party was in office. The Bill provides for the right to apply to and have papers considered by the adjudicator. If there are arguable points, the rules are clear. The case must be considered orally. I have no doubt that most cases will be considered in that way, because the threshold is very low—lower for leave to appeal than in most other parts of our judicial system such as the criminal courts. I doubt whether the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would say that there is no right of appeal in criminal cases. Yet the Bill is on all fours with that—indeed, it is rather more liberal.
Nevertheless, there must be a filter, as there is in the criminal courts, to ensure that the appellate system is not overloaded by those who enter Britain from a third safe country to which they can return if they manifestly have no claim to asylum here. For example, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned a Ugandan who came here from Italy, where he had spent four years. Another example was a member of the governing party in his own country who fled here for asylum, saying that his colleagues were rude and inconsiderate. I understand why he chose this country, where the governing party is never rude, even when provoked, and unfailingly considerate.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No. I shall not be able to complete my remarks anyway.
The Bar Council believes that there must be a fast track. I was interested to see its views. The UNHCR director for international protection, quoted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, said in May this year that in western Europe unfounded cases clog the system. Nevertheless, we are prepared to examine the arrangements in Committee with an open mind.

Mr. Vaz: Whose open mind?

Mr. Lloyd: Mine—I doubt whether there are too many among Opposition Members.
The draft rules for the asylum appeals procedure were issued unfinished so as to aid discussion. One element has caused a great deal of discussion—the two days allowed for an applicant who has been turned down to notify the adjudicator of his wish to appeal and to present the kernel of his or her case. I am sure that many cases will be able to keep to that timetable, but I see difficulties in many others. We shall be particularly interested to hear the views of Committee Members and organisations about what that time allowance should be. The Government want to avoid unnecessary delay, but it is equally their objective that every case with a serious argument for consideration should be heard orally and fully. We are emphatically not introducing an appeal system in order to truncate or bypass it.
Many hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), mentioned the availability of green form legal aid for advice, and the proposal to end it in immigration cases. We certainly do not intend to make any change that denies any asylum seeker or immigration applicant full, professional and convenient advice.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 312.

Division No. 7]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Allen, Graham
Flannery, Martin


Alton, David
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fraser, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fyfe, Maria


Ashton, Joe
Galbraith, Sam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beckett, Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, A. J.
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Gould, Bryan


Bellotti, David
Graham, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benton, Joseph
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Hain, Peter


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Keith
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carr, Michael
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles


Crowther, Stan
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cummings, John
Kumar, A.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Cunningham, Dr John
Lamond, James


Dalyell, Tarn
Leadbitter, Ted


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Loyden, Eddie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Edwards, Huw
McAvoy, Thomas


Enright, D. A.
McCartney, Ian


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McFall, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, William


Faulds, Andrew
McLeish, Henry


Fearn, Ronald
Maclennan, Robert






McMaster, Gordon
Rooker, Jeff


McNamara, Kevin
Rooney, Terence


McWilliam, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Ruddock, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Salmond, Alex


Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Sillars, Jim


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stephen, R.


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Gavin


Murphy, Paul
Straw, Jack


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


O'Hara, Edward
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Parry, Robert
Wallace, James


Patchett, Terry
Walley, Joan


Pendry, Tom
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Powell, Ray (Ogmoro)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Reid, Dr John



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Robinson, Geoffrey





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Burt, Alistair


Baldry, Tony
Butcher, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Chris


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Bendall, Vivian
Carttiss, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cash, William


Benyon, W.
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bevan, David Gilroy
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)





Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Janman, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Tony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, John Dudley
McCrea, Rev William


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclean, David


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Mitchell, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)






Porter, David (Waveney)
Summerson, Hugo


Portillo, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Redwood, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thorne, Neil


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Tracey, Richard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tredinnick, David


Rost, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Shelton, Sir William
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, Sir John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Stokes, Sir John
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 233.

Division No. 8]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Sir Richard


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Allason, Rupert
Boswell, Tim


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, Michael (Brlgg &amp; Cl't's)


Baldry, Tony
Browne, John (Winchester)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nicholas


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Burt, Alistair


Bendall, Vivian
Butcher, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Butler, Chris


Bevan, Oavid Gilroy
Butterfill, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)





Carrington, Matthew
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Janman, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Tony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, John Dudley
McCrea, Rev William


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclean, David


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Mitchell, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayward, Robert
Newton, Rt Hon Tony






Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Norris, Steve
Stokes, Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Paice, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Tredinnick, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walden, George


Rost, Peter
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, Sir William
Watts, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilshire, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Speller, Tony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman 


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boyes, Roland


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barron, Kevin
Carr, Michael


Battle, John
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bell, Stuart
Clelland, David


Bellotti, David
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benton, Joseph
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bidwell. Sydney
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, David
Crowther, Stan


Boateng, Paul
Cryer, Bob





Cummings, John
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Dr John
Livsey, Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Doran, Frank
McFall, John


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Edwards, Huw
Maclennan, Robert


Enright, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Faulds, Andrew
Marek, Dr John


Fearn, Ronald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flannery, Martin
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Derek
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Galbraith, Sam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morgan, Rhodri


George, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mullin, Chris


Gordon, Mildred
Murphy, Paul


Gould, Bryan
Nellist, Dave


Graham, Thomas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Hara, Edward


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Neill, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hain, Peter
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hinchliffe, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Reid, Dr John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Richardson, Jo


Howells, Geraint
Robertson, George


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooney, Terence


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Illsley, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Salmond, Alex


Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Short, Clare


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sillars, Jim


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kumar Ashok
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lambie, David
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Terry
Stephen Nichol






Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Straw, Jack
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Worthington, Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wray, Jimmy


Turner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Vaz, Keith



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Joan
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Question accordingly agreed to

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed

Orders of the Day — ASYLUM BILL [Money)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Asylum Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State which is attributable to provisions about the fingerprinting of persons who have made a claim for asylum, and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money under the Immigration Act 1971 which is attributable to provisions about appeals to special immigration adjudicators, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security (Adjudication)

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The regulations have not been subject to a report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but we have printed a memorandum about the statutory instrument that we received from the Department, and made copies of it available. We thought it right to publish the memorandum to help the House understand the background to the instrument. In terms of the powers of the Minister, it is quite within order, but we thought that as the background was unusual we should publish the memorandum. Unfortunately, because, in this case, we are talking about not a prayer—because of the time expiry—but simply a revocation resolution, the usual notification is not given on the Order Paper. That is why I have raised the matter on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: It is a prayer, but I thank the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for his courtesy in giving us that information, which I am sure will be much appreciated by the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1950), dated 30th August 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
The regulations against which the Opposition are praying concern backdated entitlement to benefit where there has been official Department of Social Security error or where relevant evidence was not known at the time of the original DSS decision.
The regulations represent the Government's second attempt to amend the regulation that previously applied in such cases—regulation 72, introduced in April 1987. The Government first attempted to exclude altogether supplementary benefit and national assistance from the scope of regulation 72. By the same token, back payments of income support were to be limited only to a three-year period starting in April 1988.
In other words, the effect would have been that, even where official DSS error was proven and admitted in the case of those receiving supplementary benefit prior to 1988, no back payment to rectify the error would have been made. So, whatever else followed in the wretched little saga that I am about to describe, it is crystal clear that, right from the outset, the real object behind the Government's manoeuvrings was the cutting back—indeed, the large-scale elimination—of people's entitlement to back payments of benefits where there had been official error.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): You are wrong.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): You are wrong.

Mr. Meacher: It is perfectly clear. I am talking about the first attempt to amend regulation 72 to exclude supplementary benefit and national assistance from the scope of that regulation. If one cuts through all the technicalities and complexities of the document, which has

actually gone to the Social Security Advisory Committee, it is perfectly clear that that was the core intention behind the Government's move.
That first Government attempt to amend regulation 72 provoked universal and vociferous opposition from all the bodies from which the SSAC sought evidence and, indeed, from the committee itself. As a result, the Government backed off, and the new regulation, which should never have been proposed in the first place, was ignominiously withdrawn. However, the Secretary of State then came forward, in August, with a second, revised regulation, which dropped the exclusion of supplementary benefit and national assistance and sought instead to lay down a more restrictive set of conditions for back payments.
The reasons why the right hon. Gentleman took that action are set out in his letter to me of 14 October.
Increasingly…the Regulation was being interpreted in a way which was much wider than intended with applications for review becoming ever more speculative. As a result in some areas the ability of local officers to deal with other customers was being affected by the number of review applications.
I want to deal with each of those two arguments—and, indeed, with the others that have been advanced by the DSS in support of the present regulations. First, the Secretary of State clearly blames welfare rights advisers for manipulating the regulations and for making speculative claims. The answer to that argument is very simple: manipulation is impossible in a system that requires an adjudicating officer, a social security appeal tribunal or a commissioner to be convinced that the law has been complied with. The Social Security Advisory Committee put it more tersely:
Cases which have no merit ought to be rejected by the present wording of regulation 72. To the extent that they are not, this is a matter for adjudication and not an amendment to the regulations.
That disposes of the Secretary of State's first argument.
In his letter to me of 14 October, the Secretary of State said that the number of review applications would
have seriously impaired the ability of the Agency to deliver a proper service.
I can inform the Secretary of State straight away that there is a much more immediate cause seriously impairing
the ability of the Agency to deliver a proper service
and that is the swingeing cuts in staff numbers of up to one third in each local office that the Secretary of State has carried through in the past two years under the operational strategy. Again, the Secretary of State's specious point is answered point by point by the Social Security Advisory Committee which stated:
The number of applications for review, while it creates additional work for local offices, may simply be a measure of use rather than manipulation of the provision. If such reviews succeed on their merits, this is surely a demonstration of the extent of past missed entitlement. If they succeed without merit, the fault would appear to lie with the way the appeal system is operating rather than in regulation 72 as it is currently worded.
I could not have put it better myself. So much for the Secretary of State's second argument. That is checkmate for his argument.
The Department of Social Security has also offered arguments with which I will now briefly deal. The DSS note states:
There is also the practical problem that the routine destruction of case papers means that evidence no longer exists in many cases.
However, the Department supports the right to seek a late appeal being kept open. If enough evidence and expertise


exists to deal with a late appeal, there must be enough evidence and expertise to deal with a review under regulation 72. There is nothing in that argument either.
The DSS then states:
Moreover, as supplementary benefit was replaced by income support from April 1988, local offices are becoming less likely to possess the expertise to handle supplementary benefit and national assistance matters.
That is a rum excuse. The DSS has been arguing successfully for years that if a claimant was ignorant of his entitlement, that did not justify his failure to claim or justify his having a back payment. If that is so, then by the same reason, if a DSS officer is ignorant of the past benefit system, that does not justify his preventing a person from obtaining retrospective entitlement to benefit.
The only other argument that I have been able to find in support of tonight's regulations is where the DSS states that the use of regulation 72 puts
an over-emphasis on the Department's welfare role and overlooks the fact that persons acting for the claimant could have made inquiries on the claimant's behalf.
The Secretary of State and his Ministers do not like to be reminded that they have a welfare role, but I must stress that the back payment of entitlement at issue tonight occurs under the National Insurance Act 1946, a Social Security Act and the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 which all state that DSS officers shall:
exercise their functions in such a manner as shall best promote the welfare of persons affected by the exercise of these functions.

Mr. Scott: indicated assent.

Mr. Meacher: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, he should be ashamed at the way in which the Department is now trying to wriggle out of having a welfare role. The majority of people who had benefited by the use of regulation 72 have suffered some kind of physical and/or mental disability. How can the limiting of regulation 72 be justified by a Department which has the declared aim of targeting benefits where they are most needed? It obviously cannot be justified. It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's first attempt to amend regulation 72 that the Government's motive is to save money and administration—the motive is so absolutely blatant that I am amazed that even the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, whose eccentricities are well known, could not deny the obvious—while, at the same time, blocking or restricting back payments of entitlement, even where there has been official error.
Furthermore, the indecent haste with which regulation 64A was brought forward in the recess, and then—it must be unprecedented—replaced by another identical regulation 64A, designed to come into operation immediately the next day, in the middle of the 21-day period that a regulation is supposed to lie on the Table before being implemented shows not only the willingness but the eagerness of Ministers to block or restrict those entitlements.
It is sickening that the Government would never dare to treat taxpayers in that way over their entitlements to past reliefs or past allowances. Such treatment is reserved by this Government only for those who are some of the most vulnerable in our society. These are mean, niggardly and unnecessary regulations, and I call on all hon. Members who have any decency in them to throw them out.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I was going to say that I was grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for raising this issue, because I agree with him that it needs to be properly debated on the Floor of the House. However, when I heard his speech, I was very grateful to him for having raised the issue in such a way. It gives me the opportunity to explain in proper terms why the Government took that step and to give the lie to many of the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
There has been much misunderstanding, and the hon. Gentleman has done his best to manipulate that misunderstanding. [Interruption.] He has, because he has totally misunderstood. If he has not misunderstood, he has deliberately manipulated the reasons why the Government introduced regulation 72.
The hon. Gentleman will know, or at least his advisers will know, that regulation 72 was originally introduced in April 1987 to provide for the unlimited payment of arrears of benefits in cases where an error in the determination of entitlement to benefit had been made by an official of the Department. All hon. Members understand why that was a perfectly proper arrangement. Until that time, the only statutory means by which payments of arrears in excess of the then statutory limit of 12 months could be made was by means of a late appeal to the social security appeal. Hon. Members know that that was a cumbersome and difficult procedure.
The annual report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration criticised the system whereby claimants had to go through a cumbersome late appeals procedure to obtain the full arrears benefit to which they were rightfully entitled where those exceeded the statutory 12-month limit. When giving evidence to the PCA, the then permanent secretary to the Department agreed that that situation could not be defended, so we decided to put it right.
Our original intention in enacting regulation 72 was to facilitate the unlimited payment of arrears of benefits in cases of clear official—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will listen to this because his total distortion of the case——

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way with his characteristic courtesy. If we can put all this point-scoring to one side, I should like to ask him a question concerning several thousand of my constituents. I think that I am right in saying that regulation 3 provides that the changes will not affect pending applications for review. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the deal relating to the collation of the applications, which was struck in all good faith between the social work department of Strathclyde regional council and the DSS there, still holds? Will those applications, which total 4,500 from my constituency alone, be assessed fairly and reasonably by the DSS in Strathclyde and will he assure me that there will not be the delays that characterised the applications for disability benefit vis-a-vis vibration white finger and beat knee claims?

Mr. Scott: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I know each other well enough to understand these matters. Those decisions will not be held back. They will be decided perfectly properly on the basis that the claims have been made. There may be some delays, because we have to process them according to the normal procedures, but there will not be any undue delays. All the claims from Strathclyde and other offices will be properly decided according to the previous arrangements. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. If it does not, perhaps he will come back to me on it.
Let me try to explain to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West that we were faced with an undoubted campaign to swamp the arrangements for deciding such cases. Many genuine cases would have been put aside, delayed and not arranged in time—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Oldham, West would like to challenge me on that——

Mr. Meacher: I am very glad to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. That is an absurd claim when, irrespective of the regulation that we are discussing, there are regular delays of between two and four hours for routine applications to social security offices. Often benefit is not paid for weeks on end, so to claim that the regulation would result in some of the expeditious service from the DSS that the Minister likes to talk about is absurd. This is happening for totally different reasons.

Mr. Scott: It is not absurd. That is exactly the situation with which we were confronted. Our intention was to ensure that genuine cases could be dealt with properly, such as those where the claimant had contributed or had produced fresh evidence that was relevant to a particular decision. But the idea of people making frivolous, contrived or other cases in effect to swamp the social security system with decisions was——

Mr. Thomas Graham: Many hon. Members have written to the Minister about appeals. We receive letters telling us that a notice was put on a board in the office telling people that they could claim. Many people are illiterate or do not understand the technical language, so people learn by word of mouth or various other processes that money is available. These folk claim, but then they are turned down. I do not know how many times I have had such replies on social security appeals that have been turned down. It seems that the Government are not prepared to accept that a lot of people are not sufficiently intelligent to understand the system and the bureaucracy that the Government have created.
I have dealt with reasonably intelligent people who have discovered that they could have claimed more money. The Government say that there can be no back payment. It is through no fault of those people that they did not receive the money, but there is no way in which they can receive it. The Minister tells us tonight that everything is hunky-dunky and everyone gets the money to which they are entitled. That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Scott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, I understand, of course, that some people have the feelings that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined. However, it is important for him and the

Opposition Front-Bench team to understand that when we replaced the old supplementary benefit scheme we sought to target help on the people who needed it most.
When I arrived back in the Department from the Northern Ireland Office, I appreciated the complexities of the old supplementary benefit system. We wanted to make it simpler for people to understand. We wanted to make it easier for people to get the money to which they were entitled, and I set my hand to introducing the reforms in a way that would enable people to do so. The scheme applied to elderly and disabled people, families and lone parents.
Supplementary benefit was run by this Government and their predecessor. It had become almost impossible for claimants and those who advised them to understand the system.

Mr. Graham: It is clear that many Opposition Members, and possibly some Conservative Members, have received letters telling us that claims could not be paid because a bill board had been placed in the social security office. It was: "Hard lines if you can't understand it: you get back only so much." But we are talking about people who are living in poverty. Their poverty creates worse poverty. All of a sudden, the Government run some campaign to highlight to such people that there is something else that they can claim.
I see the Minister smiling. It is not a smiling matter when one lives in Strathclyde and sees real poverty. Such people are looking for help, not hindrance, from the Government. So please take on board that it is not good enough to answer that a notice was put up to tell people that they could claim, when many people are blind or disabled or do not have the wherewithal to understand. They are living in poverty. They are in a dreadful position. The Government must help them more.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman's point is important. We do not seek to deny people their rights and benefits. Indeed, the thrust of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I seek to do is to tell people of their rights, how they can best achieve them and how they can claim in a way which is much different from before. Through benefit inquiry line and forms designed and checked out with disability and welfare rights groups, people are given the opportunity to claim benefits to which they are entitled. The system is much better organised than before. I promise——

Mr. Cryer: I draw the Minister's attention to the explanatory memorandum of the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and specifically to the fourth paragraph. The Department stated:
In anticipation of the proposed revision to the regulation, in some parts of the country"—
the Minister has mentioned this—
campaigns were organised which resulted in non-specific applications for review on a scale which would have flooded the benefit system.
It seems that it is being said that, with the onset of the campaigns, the Department feared a flood of "non-specific applications" and therefore withdrew the original regulations and laid new regulations, to come into force the following day. Will the Minister elaborate? The background is at odds with his claim that he wants people to make applications. It seems that, with the hint of campaigns in unspecified areas, with no details of the


number of applications, the Department took the unusual step that we are discussing—an unusual one on its own admission.

Mr. Scott: I play cricket with the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he understands the laws of that game. I hope that I can enable him to understand the laws of the game with which we are now involved. I want to ensure that the genuine claims of those who are in need are dealt with properly, promptly and accurately, I do not want campaigns to be organised on the basis that people sign a piece of paper that has been delivered to them by a welfare rights organisation. The form may state: "Put in this claim. Sign your name at the bottom." The result is that the system is swamped.
That prevents the proper delivery of claims by those who are really in need being dealt with properly and in a timely manner. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that he has outlined a proper approach, I ask him to reconsider his position.

Mr. George Howarth: I am tempted to accept the Minister's explanation of his motivation, but those in my constituency, one of the poorest in the country, who made claims at the time of the reforms found it more difficult to obtain any decent benefits from the system. That is the experience of the people. That is what I have been told in my surgeries and elsewhere. Does the Minister not understand why there is suspicion about the motivation behind the changes that we are debating?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about any individual cases, I shall respond in detail. I do not accept that the agency and the new arrangements that have been introduced are delivering a less good service than hitherto. We are delivering—[Interruption.]

Mr. Meacher: indicated dissent.

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Member for Oldham, West, the Opposition spokesman in this debate, wishes to intervene instead of shaking his head in dismay, I shall give way to him.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Scott: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

Mr. Meacher: We are some way from the context of the debate, but if the Minister really wants evidence of how appallingly badly the service is being delivered, I shall be extremely glad to send him the 20-page Tower Watch survey of Archway Tower social security office. It is—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), laughs and cackles, but I have no doubt that she has not been to Archway Tower. A dreadful service is badly delivered. I went there and found that people who had been waiting for four hours or more had still not received satisfaction. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that, he should resign.

Mr. Scott: Every piece of evidence that I have seen shows that the service that is now being delivered is substantially better than anything that was ever done, not least when we last had a Labour Government in office delivering those services. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong and wrong again.

Dr. Godman: I have a great deal of respect for the officials and managers of my local offices. There is a widespread belief among claimants in my constituency—about one third are in receipt directly or indirectly of social security income—that claim applications encouraged by what are known as take-up campaigns are subjected to a form of discrimination compared with other applications that go across the desk in the normal way.
Will the Minister give us an assurance that genuine applications that are encouraged by take-up campaigns are not subjected to discrimination in terms of the length of time taken for their assessment? Why is it that, in Greenock and Port Glasgow, genuine claims for disability benefit in respect of vibration white finger are almost always forced to an appeal? That is disgraceful.

Mr. Scott: Let me try to put the point. The hon. Gentleman knows how much respect I have for his campaigns in this area. Where individual claimants submit a genuine, soundly based claim or appeal to an adjudicating officer, if there is an organised campaign it is reasonable for our adjudicating officers to consider the claim with an eye that, although fair, takes account of the fact that it is an organised campaign. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen will know that those cases are still looked at fairly, but perhaps with the attitude that all the claimants were given a form and asked to sign their name at the bottom of the list, rather than submitted a carefully considered claim. It is understandable for our staff in the offices to look at such claims in a different way from that of someone who comes in off the street.

Mr. George Howarth: I had not intended to intervene again, but the Minister has invited me to do so. If a percentage of those claims turn out to be valid, the process must be utterly fair. We cannot discriminate between those who happen to have been advised that they might be entitled to claim and those who, of their own volition, decide to claim. Both are equally valid.

Mr. Scott: Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand that we are running a social security system in which we are trying to deal with the real needs of people who need support? If a welfare rights organisation or some other body hands out thousands of forms saying, "Sign at the bottom and send to your local social security office," that makes it more difficult for people with problems and claims to have their needs settled.

Mr. Peter Arch: rose——

Mr. Scott: I have great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Archer: The right hon. Gentleman never fails to show courtesy. Our problem is that we do not understand how officials can know whether a claim is frivolous until they have looked at it.

Mr. Scott: If a claim comes in in the normal sequence of events and our adjudicating officers are asked to adjudicate, that is one matter. If they have 500 claims on a pro forma where people are simply asked to sign their name at the bottom, it is not unreasonable for them to consider those claims with a certain degree of scepticism.
There may be some genuine claims among the hundreds or thousands submitted. Some welfare rights organisations damage the cause of some genuine claimants when they


mount campaigns that result in offices being swamped with claims, as that inevitably delays the decision on those genuine claimants.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of this matter is that, if one makes a claim, one should be able to give evidence in support of it? How can anyone who has a genuine concern for the people they are trying to help or any genuine concern for the taxpayers who provide the funds have any well founded objection to producing such evidence? Just signing a form that states that one would like the list of one's benefits considered is not evidence but mere assertion.

Mr. Cryer: What concerns me is that, in effect, the Minister is saying that all campaigns are condemned before they begin. If not, does he have any figures relating to such campaigns, the number of forms that were received at offices and the percentage of claims that were rejected? The right hon. Gentleman has said that those forms were filled in arbitrarily and that they have no substance. Does he have any figures to support his claim that, in some parts of the country, such campaigns were so vigorous that the Department had to take action?

Mr. Scott: I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman. In Strathclyde, 39,395 review applications were made. In Merseyside, more than 16,000 applications were made, and in the north-east, some 13,000 applications were received. Most of those applications were made in a few weeks. They came flooding in because they were deliberately organised by welfare rights groups in those areas.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) knows me well enough, and I hope that I can convince him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will seek to meet any genuine needs. However, we are aware of campaigns that have resulted in tens of thousands of applications. People have been simply asked to sign their name at the bottom of a sheet of photocopied paper that says, "I want you to look again at my rights." Such pro forma applications will not help genuine claimants who need help through the social security system. It is wrong.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Is the Minister suggesting that, because a claim is made on a printed pro forma, it is less valid than other claims? The right hon. Gentleman should congratulate authorities such as Strathclyde regional council on encouraging people with a genuine entitlement to such benefits to take them up.

Mr. Scott: If I were playing tennis, I would put the ball back in the hon. Gentleman's court by asking whether he thinks that those claims are genuine because they have been put through someone's letter box and because they ask the recipient to sign the form and post it back.

Mr. McMaster: How will we ever know if those claims are not assessed?

Mr. Scott: All such cases are assessed by adjudication officers. If Labour Members were sitting in my seat—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Not when—if, perchance, Labour Members were in that position in 20 years' time, would they be prepared to have the whole system of

assessing and adjudicating upon genuine claims destroyed by the campaigns that are being organised in some parts of this country?

Mr. Graham: The Minister will be well aware of one of the first campaigns that Strathclyde regional council ever mounted. I happen to be a former Strathclyde councillor. We were very successful in getting more than £40 million for unpaid benefits. Obviously, we have information about poverty and deficiencies in Strathclyde, and it is right that local authorities and organisations tell people that they are entitled to benefits. Surely they are in the business of improving the quality of life for people living in poverty and of trying to get further finance from the Government for that purpose. Therefore, I see people who say that the pro forma is a marker. Never in my life have I seen social security payments abound unless they were for a pound of flesh. DSS officers do not hand out money lightly, but look for evidence to support claims.

Mr. Scott: I understand and respect the work of welfare rights organisations. They do a valuable job in alerting the Government and local social security offices to need in individual areas. However, the speculative element of applications is in real danger of distorting the situation. In Merseyside, there were more than 16,000 applications for review; 11,000 were decided, and 848 of the 16,000 applicants were awarded payments. Just think of what that has done to the system there and to all the other applicants who have been seeking help from a Department that tries to ensure that people are given the awards to which they are entitled. It distorts the situation.
Will Opposition Members try to persuade the welfare rights organisations in their constituencies to behave responsibly? I promise that I want to ensure that people who really need help get it. I want to ensure that the system works properly and effectively, but I assure Opposition Members that, if they persuade and encourage welfare rights organisations to make speculative claims, they are not helping those who are in real need.

Dr. Godman: May I put Strathclyde's record straight? Strathclyde has a substantial history of take-up campaigns, some of which were undertaken with the full co-operation of the DSS. I remind the Minister of the take-up campaign that sought to improve the lot of mentally handicapped people attending adult training centres. DSS officials played a constructive role in that campaign.
I also remind the Minister that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), told me in a letter that we had every right to help organise a campaign for former employees of British Shipbuilders, who had a right to 13 weeks unemployment or supplementary benefit. So let us be consistent. In the past, the DSS has even helped organise take-up campaigns——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must tell the House and the Minister that there are only 15 minutes left for this debate; other hon. Members wish to participate and I hope that they will get the chance to do so

Mr. Scott: I shall respond briefly. I understand that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate before it concludes.
There are different sorts of take-up campaigns. I certainly respect the genuine ones that have been organised in response to industrial injuries, and have been conducted properly and sensibly, and the Government have responded to them. However, there is a distinction to be drawn between those and some of the speculative campaigns.
If I allow other hon. Members to contribute, perhaps I could have five minutes or so, along with Opposition spokesmen, to make my wind-up speech and give a total justification of what the Government are doing.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: We have heard the Minister repeat the same argument in response to several interventions, and there seem to be two strands running through it: one of principle and one of administration. As the Minister stressed repeatedly, where there are take-up campaigns involving tens of thousands of vouchers or pro-formas, they undermine and devalue the system.
However, the Minister must be careful when making such an argument. One could use the intent and motive argument to claim that to maintain the standing of the House one should seriously devalue and perhaps scrap early-day motions. Even if we have not drafted early-day motions and have not seriously studied their subject matter but are broadly in favour of the sentiment, we stick our names at the bottom. Does that mean that those motions should be ignored because we have not studied the subject matter in detail in the way that the Minister says he wants people to consider social security matters? Members can present petitions at the close of business of the House each day, but in future should we disregard them because people have merely put their signatures to something which, according to the Minister, they may not give a damn about?
Surely it is particularly ludicrous to make that argument about social security, because even those with expertise on the subject find it difficult to understand fully. There are few enough hon. Members who can claim genuine expertise in the intricacies of social security matters. When we deal with constituents at our surgeries we have difficulty understanding the complexities. How can people be expected to submit detailed applications when, for a variety of social reasons and through no fault of their own, they do not have the wherewithal, information and literacy to express themselves? For many of those people it is probably a godsend when someone hands them a piece of paper that might unlock the door to access to a benefit that they would otherwise not receive. Therefore, the Minister must be careful when he argues about the principle of the matter.
As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) suggested, the ham-fisted way in which the regulations were tabled, withdrawn, retabled and finally, under tonight's negative procedure, introduced, meant that many mentally and physically handicapped people lost out on their claims. Whether or not that was the intent of the regulations—and I am willing to believe that it was not the Minister's intent—that has been the net effect of the way in which the three-week period was cut off due to the way that the regulations were tabled.
If the Minister is saying that the proposal is liable to bog down the entire system and cause administrative

chaos, he may be right as regards some of the effects. However, he should ask himself why it is that, when people are given access and are judged eligible for the benefits, the administration is so inadequate that paying out the genuine benefits breaks the system. That begs two important questions, and it would be good if the Government were to address those issues rather than the one that they are now tackling.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: One of the difficulties of debating with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is that if one is not careful one is sucked into the vortex of hyperbole in which he seems to live. I have had the dubious privilege over the years of debating with him on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman's grasp of detail is usually so light that the idea of actually debating with him at all is risible.
I have debated several prayers over the years, but I have never participated in a debate in which the points made by the Labour party were so bogus. The Government's proposition is simple: a person making a claim that may date back a great many years ought to be able to produce some evidence to back it up. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, echoed, somewhat surprisingly, by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), says that people should be able to sign a piece of paper in the hope that it will unlock riches for them.
We have a responsibility to bear in mind where the money paid out in benefits comes from. For the most part it does not come from wealthy people such as the hon. Member for Oldham, West and other hon. Members—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems to think that he can go to his constituents and say, "Woe is me, I only earn £30,000 a year as a Member of Parliament." The amounts given out in benefits may seem trifling to people earning that sort of money. The hon. Member for Oldham, West may giggle, but £30,000 is riches beyond the dreams of avarice to many of the people whom he claims to represent. As I say, for the most part the money is not paid by the likes of me or of the hon. Gentleman; it is paid out of the wages of people who never get beyond the basic rate of tax paying. We owe it to them to ensure that their money is not squandered. It is therefore plain common sense to require evidence.
On these occasions, the hon. Member for Oldham, West is always quick to try to compare social security with the Inland Revenue's processing of people's tax returns. He always forgets that, with the Inland Revenue, we are considering how much of a citizen's money should be handed over to the state, whereas in matters relating to benefits we are considering how the taxpayer's money is handed out on our behalf.
If the hon. Member for Oldham, West or I wrote to our local tax inspector and claimed that someone had put a form through our letterbox requiring only our signature for the taxation officer to open up our tax affairs for the past 30 years on the offchance that we might be entitled to something, that would be farcical. Yet the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is how our benefit system should be run. He was once a social security Minister and he does himself no credit by forgetting that there are two sides to every argument. He also does himself no good by laying a prayer


that has to be among the most bogus, ill thought out and badly argued measures to come before the House for many a long year.

Mr. Graham Allen: After Mr. Nasty, Mr. Nice Guy.
Every Member of Parliament here tonight probably represents thousands of constituents who will be affected by this mean little regulation. The people targeted by the Government include the elderly, those with learning difficulties and their carers, the mentally handicapped, and the physically disabled. Those people are not exploiting a loophole or grabbing at a large pot of gold. They are entitled to these benefits, they should have received them in the past, and they should have received them by law. The House legislated for that help for the most needy in society, and the proposed legislation will remove from many the ability to claim backdated benefits. The current legislation allows benefit to be backdated indefinitely by reason only of a mistake made or something done or omitted to be done by an officer of the DHSS. That is quite simple. A person unwittingly cheated of his entitlement because of official error would receive backdated benefit when the error was discovered. There are many people in that position, and they have been found by hon. Members and by social workers and others involved in welfare matters. Many of those people remain dependent on officials in the Department.
There is widespread ignorance about what may he claimed. Unbelievably, I discovered tonight that the majority of people in disability categories 9 and 10 fail to claim attendance or mobility allowance. Many of the claims that we are debating are made by those with a mental handicap, people who almost by definition are unable to act by themselves. Recently, it was found that a mentally handicapped woman in Durham had been wrongly denied benefit for a number of years and that the cumulative total was £25,000. That was entirely due to official error. She finally received the money, but now the Conservatives wish to obstruct such people in their pursuit of backdated benefit.

Mr. Scott: rose——

Mr. Allen: The Minister tabled the statutory instrument when the House was not sitting and has just delivered a speech lasting 40 minutes. He has abused——

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not unprecedented for an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to refuse to give way to a Minister in a case such as this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that there are precedents. It is for the hon. Member who is on his feet to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Allen: It is unprecedented to deny people benefit by means of a statutory instrument tabled and coming into force when the House is not sitting. When the House finally has a chance to debate the matter the Minister of State takes 40 minutes over his speech. Conservatives seek to obstruct people who wish to claim backdated benefits.

Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I impress upon the hon. Gentleman that any case of official error—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] I make it absolutely clear that in any case of official error, no matter how far back the case goes, payment will be made.

Mr. Allen: One is tempted to ask why the statutory instrument is needed. The Minister is condemned by his own words and by his original statutory instrument which sought to remove entirely the words "supplementary benefit" from the regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, the Minister withdrew the statutory instrument and introduced the new one only when more than 50 voluntary organisations and others vehemently objected to what he was trying to do. The new instrument seeks to skin the same cat but in a slightly different way. This way of skinning the cat involves changing the burden of proof, extending the way in which benefits can be used, and not backdating them.
The burden of proof has switched from the Department which made the error to the claimant. The individual—perhaps an elderly or disabled person—will already have suffered through losing benefit a repetitive, accumulating and hurtful loss.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)):—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 271.

Division No. 9]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Cousins, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crowther, Stan


Armstrong, Hilary
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Battle, John
Darling, Alistair


Beckett, Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Doran, Frank


Benton, Joseph
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Boyes, Roland
Enright, D.A.


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fearn, Ronald


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Foster, Derek


Carr, Michael
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fyfe, Maria


Clelland, David
Galbraith, Sam


Cohen, Harry
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
George, Bruce






Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morgan, Rhodri


Gordon, Mildred
Morley, Elliot


Gould, Bryan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mullin, Chris


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Nellist, Dave


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William


Hardy, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Neill, Martin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Parry, Robert


Henderson, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Prescott, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Geraint
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Reid, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Richardson, Jo


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooney, Terence


Kennedy, Charles
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ruddock, Joan


Kumar, A.
Salmond, Alex


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Loyden, Eddie
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McCrea, Rev William
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Stott, Roger


McFall, John
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McLeish, Henry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbock)


Maclennan, Robert
Turner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Vaz, Keith


McNamara, Kevin
Walley, Joan


McWilliam, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Madden, Max
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meacher, Michael



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michael, Alun
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. John McAvoy.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Amos, Alan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy





Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boswell, Tim
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hague, William


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayward, Robert


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Chris
Hill, James


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kilfedder, James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cormack, Patrick
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Curry, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knowles, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Day, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Dicks, Terry
Lee, John (Pendle)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Madel, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marland, Paul


Franks, Cecil
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gill, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miller, Sir Hal


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)






Mitchell, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stern, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Stevens, Lewis


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stokes, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Irvine
Thorne, Neil


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Price, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, Sir John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, Sir William
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. David Lightbown, and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Question accordingly negatived.

PETITIONS

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 16,300 concerned members of the public, registering protest at the Government's proposals to restrict the rights of asylum seekers—the proposed abolition of legal aid for asylum seekers, the extension of the restriction on airline carriers, and the suggestion that asylum seekers be fingerprinted in a discriminatory fashion. The petition ends:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do not proceed with these unjust proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Export of Live Horses for Slaughter

Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Janet Burke of 59 Fairfield road, Scunthorpe, who has gone to considerable trouble to collect signatures protesting against any attempt to reintroduce the export of live horses for slaughter.
Since the petition was raised, there has been some progress in this direction in the European Community, and I am pleased that the EC has been especially sympathetic towards the views of people like Mrs. Burke and the many hundreds who signed her petition. However, I understand that the matter is still to be finalised in the Community, and that negotiations are still taking place. Mrs. Burke's petition is therefore a timely reminder of the issue and gives considerable support to the position that the United Kingdom has adopted in the EC.
The petition reads:
The Humble Petition of the Scunthorpe and district people sheweth That there is great opposition to any attempt to export live horses from this country for slaughter on the continent. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take every step to persuade the European Community not to introduce regulations that will ever allow such trade to be introduced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I wholeheartedly support the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Pensions

Mr. Morley: I wish to present a second petition, signed by many thousands of Scunthorpe district residents. It relates to the calculation of pensions in this country. In 1979 the link between state pensions and the average increase in wages was broken by the Government. Pensions were instead linked to the retail prices index. That change has severely reduced the amount of pension that many pensioners receive.
The people who have raised the petition, in particular the Scunthorpe pensioners rights campaign, point out that they seek not only the restoration of the link that was broken in 1979, but also parity with pensions in Europe. I believe that our pensioners have had a very poor deal over the past few years——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue his case. He is tending to précis the petition.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I believe that pensioners have had a raw deal and I fully support the petition which states:
The Humble Petition of the people of Scunthorpe district sheweth
That there is an essential need to improve the pensions and conditions of the country's pensioners.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will restore the link between pension calculations and average earning increases, as a first step in bringing state pensions into line with the best in Europe.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will for ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Croatia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Peter Fry: At the beginning of this debate, it is necessary for us all to hope that the current ceasefire in Croatia and the negotiations are successful. If they are not, I fear that the worries that I will express tonight will be fulfilled.
For more than 20 years in the House I have tried to be a friend to all the peoples of Yugoslavia. Two weeks ago, I revisited Zagreb having previously led a parliamentary delegation there a year ago. At the time the possibility of the present disastrous conflict was already becoming clear.
At that time, as chairman of the parliamentary group, I urged the newly elected politicians to accept that, although some change was necessary, complete separation was not inevitable. I asked them to work for a loose confederation of equal republics, largely self-governing, but with certain specified powers on a federal basis.
As an encouragement to them, my fellow officers and members of the parliamentary group called on our Government to help admit Yugoslavia to several international institutions to give greater credibility to the federal Government and greater respectability and authority to the name of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, that opportunity was lost. The western powers misread the situation. They did not see that the rampant nationalism that had brought Presidents Tudjman and Milosevic to power would so fan the flames of separatism and so reawaken the enmities of 50 years or more, that the compromise that might well have been possible earlier this year and which the European Foreign Ministers have since tried to impose has now become impossible.
Then, greater diplomatic pressure, combined with the offer of a stronger attachment to the European Community and help to deal with the genuine grievances of Serbs and Croats, might have worked. My recent visit has convinced me that that kind of solution is now dead. Although both sides say that they want peace, innocent civilians are being slaughtered, their economies are being ruined, more than 400,000 of them are refugees and homeless and Dubrovnik, that jewel of the Adriatic, faces destruction.
Croatia is desperately calling for international recognition as a sovereign state. I do not believe that that would necessarily bring the help that the Croats think they need. Indeed, in the short term it could only further inflame Serbian nationalism, with bad results. Such recognition, which will come, should be part of a general agreement to resolve the whole situation. Once we play the card of the threat of recognition it cannot be used again.
If the current ceasefire does not hold, we will have to ask what should be done now. Diplomatic activity so far has failed, despite the gallant efforts of Lord Carrington. Perhaps he was brought in too late to succeed—I hope not.
The move towards economic sanctions is necessary, unfortunately, but sanctions will take a very long time to work. Direct military intervention on the ground would be extremely dangerous and even foolhardy without an effective ceasefire. In any event, a ceasefire has to be observed on agreed front lines. There is little doubt that


the Serbs would want to retain most of what they now occupy, whereas the Croats would want to return to frontiers drawn up by the late Marshal Tito.
Even if there were agreement, much of the disputed territory would still be at the mercy of both Serb and Croat irregulars, acting outside the control of their Government, and those forces would continue to be a source of fighting and unrest unless they were disarmed. That would be an essential prerequisite for any United Nations force being asked to take over a policing operation.
There is one immediate step that Serbia could take as a clear sign that it wants peace. That step is to cease attacking Dubrovnik and to withdraw from it. It was an appalling mistake for the city to be attacked in the first place. Serbia has never had any legitimate claim to it, and the assault has done much to weaken the Serbian case in the eyes of the civilised world. A clear warning from the international community about Dubrovnik is long overdue. Perhaps we should even contemplate some naval action to alleviate the blockade and bring help to the 50,000 civilians still trapped there. Firm action over Dubrovnik might impress both sides that European powers or the United Nations really meant business.
On Croatia's part, the immediate implementation of its plans to establish and safeguard the rights of minorities would be a sign that it recognises that there have been and are legitimate fears, particularly among the Serbs in Croatia. Many Serbs, however, continue to live in the cities and the urban areas of Croatia, and they must be encouraged to do so, if necessary, by an international guarantee of their rights.
I met Serbs and the leader of the Jewish community while in Zagreb. They wanted to stay in Croatia, but they felt that continued conflict would only threaten their own personal security and future.
Any agreement or any peace treaty, when it comes, must recognise that to humiliate either the Serbs or the Croats would be a great mistake. It is necessary to take steps to deal with legitimate grievances and to consider how a plebescite might be organised, how more aid might be given, and how refugees might be resettled. No matter what settlement is reached, if either republic, particularly Serbia, feels that it has been unfairly treated, any ceasefire will be temporary, and sooner or later the matter will rise again.
Much more has to be done by the European Community. Already the Serbian economy is suffering from raging inflation. In the words of the Vice-President of Croatia, the economy is disintegrating.
Hitherto, European efforts have been well meaning but ineffective. My right hon. and hon. Friends must take stronger action in concert with our European partners to show the world that we take this situation much more seriously than many people in Yugoslavia seem to think. I have considerable respect and sympathy for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), but we must make further efforts, even if some risk is attached, or the present conflict will spread to Bosnia and other parts of Yugoslavia and perhaps beyond that to other countries.
What is most disappointing is the European Community's failure to act as we should have liked. In last week's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, Geoffrey Wheatcroft wrote:
It was a woman speaking from inside Dubrovnik against a background of shellfire who said: 'We expected so much from Europe and got so little.' Here is the reality of the 'European idea': a Community whose finest administrative minds devote themselves to deciding whether a carrot is a vegetable or a fruit, whose political leaders discuss not so much ambitious as fantastic plans for military integration—and which cannot in practice prevent Europeans tearing themselves to pieces and destroying part of what it is not exaggerated to call our European heritage.
Serious consideration must be given to further diplomatic and other action. If Europe is serious about a common defence and foreign policy, it must face and deal with the challenge of Yugoslavia. If it does not, thousands more will die and in future generations the name Dubrovnik will produce anguish and remorse at the stupidity of mankind and the failure of the international community to act effectively.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) have the consent of both the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and the Minister to participate?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): indicated assent.

Mr. Fry: indicated assent

Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful to both the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and the Minister for their generosity in allowing me to contribute to this Adjournment debate.
I recently visited Zagreb along with the hon. Gentleman. It was my first visit and I learnt a great deal from his experience. I am impressed tonight to see how much we agree about the position there and on the need for much stronger action than has been taken so far.
We have to face the facts of the current situation. Yugoslavia, as it was, cannot be brought back to life now. So long the sick man of Europe, it is now not only dead but hung, drawn and quartered. We have to recognise Serbia and Croatia as separate entities. Once that recognition is made, all else begins to fall into place. It does not make it any easier to do what we have to do, but it makes seeing what we have to do much clearer, because it then becomes obvious that Serbia has been the blatant aggressor in the war and that its aggression simply cannot be tolerated by the international community. The real danger today is not of being seen to condone precipitate separatism but, through the impotence of our response so far, of being seen to condone brutal and barbaric behaviour of a kind that has not been seen in Europe since the 1940s.
The Government, together with their European partners, should go immediately to the Security Council of the United Nations and call, in the first instance, for full and effective sanctions against the Serbian Government, including an oil embargo; and for the authority that is necessary to allow the Community to take whatever further measures, including military measures, may be


necessary to bring about an end to the Serbian Government's aggression should Lord Carrington's latest efforts fail.
Of course, everyone is aware of the difficulty of introducing an EC peacekeeping force before there is a genuine peace to keep, but the Government should urgently consider other options such as the naval action which the hon. Member for Wellingborough suggested. There is also the possibility of an air blockade which would not only guard against sanctions busting but make the Serbian air force desist from its present bombing campaign.
The British Government have a special responsibility in this matter, because British manufacture cluster bombs are being used by the Yugoslav air force, which is de facto a Serbian air force, to attack civilian targets. I have seen the cluster cases in a village on the front line in Croatia and I can testify to their British markings.
The Serbian forces must be starved of supplies and oil and denied the use of their air power. It must be made crystal clear that they must withdraw from the land that they presently occupy in Croatia before there can be progress towards a lasting settlement. The question of borders is always difficult. There is no such thing as a natural border. Every border is in some sense arbitrary, but the international community must rigorously enforce the golden rule that no border can be changed by unilateral resort to force. Changes to borders can come about only by mutual agreement and consent. That must be made crystal clear to the politicians and generals of Serbia. There can be no reward for the aggresion that they have undertaken. If the European Community fails to make that lesson stick in the context of the present crisis in Yugoslavia it will in time feel the consequences as other regions become afflicted with the same madness.
Both the hon. Member for Wellingborough and. I were impressed by the EC monitoring force that we met in Zagreb. When we say that the response of the Community so far has been ineffectual, that is not a comment on the team spirit and competence of that monitoring force. It has done its best, but it does not have the tools to enable it to do the job. Now is the time to give it those tools.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I fully recognise the knowledge and experience possessed by both the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is, as he reminded us, the chairman of the parliamentary group. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter in detail with him on two occasions and I am conscious of his considerable knowledge and experience. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has also had the advantage of visiting Yugoslavia recently. Therefore, he brings to the debate a clear perception based on recent experience.
Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend were perhaps slightly unfair to the European Community in their assessment of what it has done. The European Community has put in place a range of measures which are capable over a period of time of leading to a solution. As both hon. Members will have in mind, European Community monitors are now in place who have been exposed to a high degree of personal risk. At the same time

we have established the conference, albeit adjourned, under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington. It provides the framework for a negotiated settlement.
As both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will also have in mind, last Friday the European Foreign Ministers approved a package of sanctions. Work is now proceeding within the United Nations to secure further action, most notably perhaps the oil embargo. The Secretary-General may well report back to the Security Council with further recommendations on what should be done. Those are all positive steps which, it is true, have not led to peace as yet. Indeed, while the parties are anxious to continue with the fighting such steps are unlikely to lead to peace. But they establish the framework within which peace could be created if the parties wished to stop the fighting.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have established several points with which I strongly agree. Both focused on minority rights within Yugoslavia, and I entirely agree that that issue lies at the core of the problem within the country. There are minorities in almost every republic—that is not wholly true but it is almost true. There are no ethnic minorities in Slovenia but there are substantial ones in Croatia, most notably the Serbs.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: There are a few in Slovenia.

Mr. Hogg: I accept the correction.
There are important Albanian minorities in Macedonia and Serbs. There are minorities of Serba, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia.
If we are to see a solution of the problems in Yugoslavia, it must be one that addresses minority rights. I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough about the international entrenching of minority rights. I do not envisage a long-lasting solution to the problem of Yugoslavia that does not take up the issue of minority rights and seek to entrench them, perhaps by international action.
I am sceptical about the proposition that minority rights can be protected by redrawing internal frontiers. With few exceptions it would be extremely difficult to redraw those frontiers to prevent an ethnic group being a minority in a republic.
I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles about the importance of frontiers. They should not be changed by unilateral action, nor by force. An important presumption to which we should all adhere is that existing frontiers, however inconvenient and however arbitrarily they may have been drawn, are the lines from which we start. They can be changed only by agreement or by the adjudication of a lawful authority such as an international court. There are no frontiers within eastern and central Europe with which everyone is wholly comfortable. Best stay with what we have rather than try to change for something else.
As I have said, the critical problem is that of minorities. I do not think that frontiers should be changed by force or by unilateral action. I think that there exists the framework within which an agreed settlement could be brought about if the parties are anxious to see that happen.

Mr. Wareing: As the Minister knows, I agree with the Government's even-handed attitude towards Yugoslavia thus far. As for minorities and boundaries between Croatia and Serbia, however, there has been a suggestion


that President Tudjman of Croatia and President Milosevic of Serbia would agree to a peacekeeping force. I am aware of the argument about peace before a peacekeeping force, but does the Minister agree that we should pursue the idea—perhaps through the North Atlantic Co-operation Council—that there could be a peace-keeping force within the Serbian enclaves in Croatia and along the Croatian border with Serbia while negotiations take place? It is the Serbian minority in Croatia that was part of the spark that set alight the flames in Yugoslavia.

Mr. Hogg: I shall respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and the hon. Member for Western Isles on the question of force and then come to the very issue that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has raised, which I recognise is relevant.
There is a slight incompatibility between the arguments that have been advanced. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and the hon. Member for Wesern Isles began their respective speeches by saying, in effect, that now is not the time to introduce land forces into Yugoslavia. My hon. Friend was certainly of that mind. I think that he accepts that that would constitute a long-term commitment, and a hazardous and dangerous one. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have suggested, however, that there is a step short of that that they would recommend—most notably air interdiction or, alternatively, a naval force. There is a distinction.
There is a distinction to be drawn between an evacuation of the kind that we may see tonight in Dubrovnik and an interdiction naval force designed to prevent, for example, the shelling of Dubrovnik by Yugoslav gun boats. I shall address the second point: whether we could deploy naval units in that form of action. I do not believe that we can because there is no authority to do so. Let us be clear about this: if we were to deploy naval units, they could be effective only if they were authorised to fire. That is an act of war. We cannot commit an act of war unless it is lawful. I do not believe that it would be lawful unless it were underpinned by some appropriate resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. It is unlikely that we would get such authority at the moment.
The same applies to air interdiction. That will not be successful unless it is backed by the readiness to fire. That, too, is an act of war. That being so, in the absence of the Security Council resolution it would not be justified or, indeed, possible. Therefore, for the moment I could not commend either proposition to the House.
In any event, I would be cautious, because once taking the path of force it is difficult to stop going the whole way. It is difficult to draw any intellectual distinction between, on the one hand, the deployment of naval and air forces and, on the other, the deployment of land forces. If we do the one, we are driven to the other. I must be honest about this: I fear greatly the prospect of committing land forces to that part of the world. I shrink from it.

Mr. Macdonald: The Minister may have answered my question. He pointed out that it was not right to take those measures without authority from the Security Council. Why are not the Government pressing harder in the

Security Council for such measures? He expressed his doubts about the quagmire that we would involve ourselves in, but does he realistically expect the Serbian aggression to be halted without a sign of a more firm stance by the international community?

Mr. Hogg: I do not believe that at present the Security Council would authorise the use of force. There is no prospect of its doing so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we are focusing on what is obtainable within the Security Council, most notably the UN underpinning of sanctions and of the oil embargo. We may be able to achieve that. We shall have to see. But I do not believe that the authority would extend to military action of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
The proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is not unattractive. I understand the intellectual force of it. He is saying that we should protect the enclaves by some form of peacekeeping force. If I may, I shall restate the Government's position on a peacekeeping force in general and then come to the particular.
The Government do not think that the time is right for the introduction of such a force because there is no peace to keep. We would be called upon to make a peace, that is, to prise the fighters apart. That would be an extremely hazardous operation. Moreover, although both President Tudjman and President Milosevic have invited the Security Council and, indeed, the international community to deploy a peacekeeping force, it is clear from the small print that there are substantial differences between the two positions. The Serbs say that such a force should be along existing fighting lines, whereas the Croats say that it should be along historic frontiers. Those views are incompatible.
There may come a time when we would be willing to deploy a peacekeeping force. The circumstances have been defined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. First, there must be an effective ceasefire. Secondly, those who request it must genuinely be prepared to accept it on their territory. Thirdly, the deployment of the force must be seen to be positively productive in terms of contributing to a settlement. None of those three conditions genuinely exists. When they do, we can seriously address the question of a peacekeeping force. It may be that in such circumstances the hon. Gentleman's proposal that there shall be some deployment into the enclaves becomes an option that we shall seriously consider.
As of now, we have no peace to keep. If we were to introduce forces anywhere in that country, I am afraid that they would be shot at by both sides. They would be committed to an operation that would be lengthy in its duration and extremely hazardous in its character.
I accept, as the hon. Members have stressed, that this is an extremely distressing situation. It is beastly. I recognise that it is extremely destabilising to the eastern marches of Europe. That does not mean that we should act rashly or imprudently. We want to keep step with our European Community partners and with our friends and allies outside the EC. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough about recognition, but I think that it would be premature to do it now, as it is an important lever in our efforts to secure the protection of minority rights.
This has been an important debate and I hope that I have addressed the various questions that——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.